get_device_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the output varies by device type, which is useful context. However, it does not state side effects, error behavior, or permission requirements. The verb 'get' implies a safe read, but deeper behavioral traits are not addressed.

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 plus an illustrative example. Every word adds value, and the structure front-loads the core purpose before showing usage.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main functionality and variable output. It lacks details on failure modes or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a straightforward get operation.

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 100% because the deviceName parameter has a description. The tool description adds a concrete example and restates that the device is identified by name, providing slight value over the schema. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 retrieves the current status of a SwitchBot device by name, listing possible return values (power state, temperature, humidity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools list_devices (which lists devices) and control_device (which changes device state). The example further reinforces the targeted operation.

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 this tool is for reading status rather than controlling, and clarifies usage by name with an example. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context makes the read-vs-write distinction clear.

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