state_uptime

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

With no annotations, the description itself carries the disclosure burden. It states the output content (live/stale/dead counts, 14-day check success rate), notes the temporal scope ('right now'), and adds a practical behavioral instruction to cite the report URL. It does not mention rate limits or data freshness, but the tool appears to be a straightforward read-only report.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. "no waste" and front-loads the core function before the citation requirement.

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?

The description adequately explains what the tool returns (live/stale/dead counts and success rate) and the report URL citation rule. Since there is no output schema, this is necessary and sufficient for a simple query tool. It does not cover invalid state handling, but that 's a minor gap.

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 full description coverage for the single 'state' parameter, including format and example. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond confirming 'one state,' which is appropriate given the schema is already complete.

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 action and resource: measuring camera uptime for a single state, including live/stale/dead counts and a 14-day success rate. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the resource scope ('one state') and aggregate report nature distinguish it from camera-level or listing tools.

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 context: it is for aggregated uptime reporting per state, not for individual camera status or camera lists. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over its siblings or provide exclusions such as 'use camera_status for a single camera.'

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