show_device_status_ui

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the tool returns HTML and supports various hosts, but does not state whether it modifies device state, requires authentication, or handles errors. While the tool name implies read-only, this is not explicitly confirmed.

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 concise—two sentences plus an args line—with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently includes fallback guidance and supported hosts.

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?

Given the single parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, output format (rich HTML), supported hosts, and alternatives. It lacks explicit error handling or permission details, but overall is complete for a simple UI tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning by specifying that device_identifier is 'Device name or IP address.' This bridges the gap, though additional details like format or validation would improve clarity further.

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 clearly states the tool shows a device status card with interactive controls, specifying it returns rich HTML with device details and buttons. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning a text-only fallback using get_device_status and control_device.

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 description explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Text-only fallback: use get_device_status + control_device instead.' This tells the agent when to avoid this tool and offers clear alternatives, making the usage criteria well-defined.

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