get_robot_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not whether this is read-only, how invalid or unknown serial numbers are handled, whether it batches, or how many results come back. The verb 'get' faintly implies a read, which is the only behavioral signal present.

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 short phrases with no padding, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — the text is too thin to earn its place as guidance for a tool with an undocumented required parameter.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required array parameter, the description supplies none of the missing context: not the returned status fields, not error behavior, not the relationship to sibling status/capability tools.

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 single parameter robot_sn_list has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The agent cannot tell whether the list is required, how many serial numbers are accepted, or what format they take, and the description does nothing to compensate.

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 is essentially a bilingual restatement of the tool name ('Get robot status'), giving a verb and resource but no scope, no return semantics, and no differentiation from siblings such as get_robot_capabilities or describe_work_state.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_robots or get_robot_capabilities, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. An agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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