get_device_status

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

There are no annotations, so this description carries the behavioral burden. It does communicate that the operation returns device-specific data and implies a read operation, but it does not mention error behavior, offline devices, or whether the deviceId must be an ID vs a name.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loading the core operation and following with the expected return data. The 'etc.' is slightly vague but acceptable at this length.

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 one-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it states the operation and the kind of returned properties. It is less complete on sibling differentiation and exact supported device properties, which would help an agent choose correctly.

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 100%, and the schema already explains that deviceId can be an ID or name. The description adds little beyond the schema's parameter documentation apart from implying the device must exist in the account.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed status of any SwitchBot device') and indicates the return shape ('device-specific properties like power state, battery level'). It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_plug_status or get_temperature.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. With siblings like get_plug_status, get_temperature, and list_devices, the description leaves it to the agent to infer when the generic detailed-status tool should be preferred.

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