watchdog_report

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 discloses that the report reflects what the 'background watchdog last saw' (historical/cached data), includes specific status details, and emphasizes that it does not poke the phone, establishing read-only behavior. It does not detail staleness limits, but 'last saw' strongly implies them.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler. The first states what the tool shows; the second explains when to use it. Every phrase 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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the data source, the report contents, and the intended use case. Output schema handles return-shape concerns, so nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline score of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('what the background watchdog last saw'), with concrete details like 'when the phone went down' and 'whether a repair was attempted'. This clearly distinguishes it from live-check tools such as check_device.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool to answer 'has the phone been reachable?' 'without poking the phone right now,' which gives clear context and implies avoiding live-check alternatives. It stops short of naming the exact sibling tool, so it misses the full explicitness needed for a 5.

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