meiju_get_status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses two important behavioral traits: fields may be absent and remain 'unknown', and the cloud data may be cached (i.e., stale). That is genuine added context for interpreting results and avoiding wrong conclusions.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the caveats. Every clause carries information.

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 structure need not be described. With caching and unknown-field caveats covered, the definition is nearly complete; only the per-device acquisition route (device_id source) is left implicit.

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 carries the burden. 'Selected AC' hints that device_id identifies an AC unit, but it adds no format, source, or acquisition guidance beyond what the string schema already says.

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 ('Read') and resource ('AC's cloud status'), which clearly separates it from meiju_control (mutation) and meiju_get_capabilities. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, but the read/status framing is unambiguous.

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?

No indication of when to prefer this over meiju_get_capabilities, meiju_list_devices, or a status field returned elsewhere. The agent must infer that this is the per-device status lookup from the name alone.

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