get_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description only needs additive context. 'Live status' usefully signals real-time, non-cached data, but nothing is said about freshness semantics, failure modes for offline devices, or error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the resource and returned fields front-loaded before the prerequisite hint. Nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and it supplies the prerequisite for the undocumented parameter. Only edge-case behavior (offline device, staleness) is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single `duid` property has no description, so the description carries the burden. It explains where to obtain the duid, which is the one piece of meaning an agent actually needs; format details remain absent.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the live status of one device') and enumerates the returned fields (battery, state, fan speed, errors), which separates it from list_devices and the action siblings. It never explicitly contrasts with get_map, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 second sentence ('Get duid from list_devices') gives a concrete prerequisite and routes the agent to the right sibling for obtaining input. There is no statement of when not to use it or when get_map would be preferred.

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