phone_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the categories of information returned, which signals a read-only status operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, requires no permissions, or has no side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the relevant status categories without any wasted wording. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter status tool.

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?

Given the low complexity, zero parameters, and absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonably complete picture of what the tool returns. It could be slightly more complete by specifying the format or granularity of Wi-Fi and volume data, but the core categories are covered.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on the returned status categories instead.

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 a specific resource, phone status, and enumerates the status categories returned: battery level, charging state, temperature, Wi-Fi connection, and volume. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling action tools such as open_app, notify, and speak, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 usage by naming status categories, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose it over another status-related tool.

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