device_realtime

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly conveys a read-only query behavior, the 'all devices' scope, and the raw-value basis, which are the central behavioral traits. It does not mention output structure, authentication, or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read tool these omissions are acceptable.

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?

One concise sentence with a short parenthetical qualifier delivers both the operation and the key data attribute. The information is front-loaded and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple zero-parameter read tool, the description covers what is returned (latest measurement values), the scope (all devices), and the value basis (raw, uncorrected). A small gap remains: it does not describe the response format or clarify whether 'all devices' means globally or within the current site context, but this is not critical for tool selection.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete and the description has no parameter burden to carry. The baseline of 4 for zero-param tools applies; nothing extra is needed.

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 ('조회한다' / retrieves) and identifies the resource clearly: the latest measurement values from all measuring devices. The parenthetical raw-value note distinguishes it from corrected-value tools like device_realtime_correction, so an agent can tell which sibling is intended.

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 gives contextual signals by stating that values are raw and uncorrected, implying that a corrected-value tool would be a different choice. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as device_realtime_correction or data_recent, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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