phone_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the accessibility service being switched off without warning and the symptom masquerading as a network issue. However, it does not explicitly state whether the check is read-only, what state it inspects, or whether any side effects occur.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose immediately, and the second provides a valuable, non-redundant rationale for calling this tool early in troubleshooting. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity diagnostic tool with an output schema present, the description covers the key 'why and when' context well. However, the undocumented 'device' parameter and lack of distinction from the sibling 'check_device' leave meaningful gaps in the overall call context.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the 'device' parameter, its format, possible values, or what happens when it is omitted. The agent is left without guidance on how to supply the optional device argument, which is a significant gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether the phone is reachable and why not, if not.' This is a clear diagnostic purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling 'check_device', so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives strong, explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Worth calling first when something stops working' and explains the specific failure mode where the accessibility service can be silently disabled and appear as a network problem. It does not, however, mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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