kreta_device_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific subject (allocation and registration status) but does not disclose details like authorization requirements, data scope, or response behavior. It is consistent with the annotations.

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 concise sentence that states the tool's function up front with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and a single optional parameter, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose. However, the 'child' parameter is left completely unexplained, which is a clear gap for an agent deciding whether and how to supply it.

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 schema has one parameter, 'child', with no description, and schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description never mentions this parameter or explains what it controls (e.g., filtering by student), so it adds no meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 ('lekérése' = retrieval) and a concrete resource ('tárgyi eszköz kiosztási és regisztrációs állapota' = physical device allocation and registration status). This clearly identifies the tool's domain among many KRÉTA sibling tools, none of which target device/asset status.

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 implies the usage context: call when you need KRÉTA physical device allocation and registration status. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but among the sibling tools there is no competing device-status tool, so the intended use is reasonably clear.

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