get_status

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

With no annotations, the description does real work by disclosing that responses are cached and that refresh bypasses the cache — a genuine behavioral trait an agent could not infer otherwise. However, it says nothing about freshness/staleness window, polling expectations, authorization, or any failure behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence naming the resource and its fields, followed by one short sentence on the parameter. Nothing is wasted and the essential information leads.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the field enumeration plus cache note covers the core contract for a one-parameter read tool. Remaining gap is operational context such as how fresh the cached state is or how often polling is sensible.

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 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter — and it does, explaining that refresh=true bypasses the cache (the schema only offers a boolean with a default). What it does not say is whether a stale read is acceptable or how old cached data might be.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Live robot state') and enumerates the fields returned: battery, mission phase, bin, tank, pad, position, raw shadow. This is concrete enough to distinguish it from static-info siblings like get_robot_info or get_consumables, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only guidance is 'Set refresh=true to bypass the cache,' which covers when to use the parameter but not when to choose this tool over get_robot_info, get_settings, or get_map. Usage is implied by 'live state' rather than stated.

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