quest_thermal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the throttling behavior (Quest throttles CPU/GPU as skin temps climb) and what the tool surfaces (warning/critical flags), which adds meaningful context. It doesn't explicitly state side effects, but as a read-only check this is acceptable.

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. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and outputs; the second provides useful context. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers what it returns and why to use it. The only notable gap is the unmentioned device_id parameter, which prevents a perfect score. Given the tool's simplicity, this is still well-rounded.

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 schema has one optional device_id parameter with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description does not mention device_id at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage and fails to do so, the score is low.

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 explicitly states 'Check thermal state' and lists exactly what information is returned: throttle status, all temperature sensors with warning/critical flags, and max skin temperature. This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like quest_performance or quest_monitor.

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 provides clear usage context: 'watch for warnings during long play sessions' directly ties to the tool's purpose and explains when to use it. However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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