get_consumables

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 implies a read-only counter query via 'get' and 'counters' but never states that it has no side effects, requires no permissions, or reflects cached vs live device state. The presence of an output schema relieves it of explaining return shape, keeping this at an adequate 3.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the covered parts and the two data points returned. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 zero parameters and an output schema covering the return values, the description only needs to establish what the tool is for, which it does. The one remaining gap is the absence of any statement about read-only behavior or freshness of the counters.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 names the resource precisely (consumable counters for brush, filter, pads and other parts) and states what each entry conveys: remaining life plus a reset-due flag. It is distinguishable from the mutating sibling reset_consumable, though it never explicitly says 'retrieves/reads' or names that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs remaining consumable life or wants to know if a reset is due. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to reset_consumable as the follow-up action.

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