get_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it reveals possible values like power 'unknown', a 'reachable' flag, and the full list of status fields returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element earns its place: the resource, the action, and a compact parenthetical list of all returned fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description is complete: it lists all meaningful return values and the annotations cover safety, idempotence, and world-openness. Since there is no output schema, the explicit field enumeration is especially valuable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero properties and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to explain. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description introduces no parameter-related ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Retourne') and names the exact resource ('statut du Denon') with the returned fields enumerated (volume, power, muted, source, reachable). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are all mutating commands such as volume_set, power_on, and mute_toggle.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The read-only nature and returned fields make it obvious this is the status-checking tool among the sibling control commands, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It relies on inference from the sibling names and annotations rather than stating a decision rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.