Hobart active errors

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds two non-obvious traits: a per-machine 30-second real-call throttle and cached responses on faster calls. It also clarifies the semantics of an empty result, which is a genuine behavioral edge case. It stops short of saying whether cached answers are distinguishable from fresh ones or how long the cache window is.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler: what it returns, how to read an empty result, and the rate-limit/caching rule. The primary definition is front-loaded ahead of the caveats.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it does at a high level (error code plus since-when) along with empty-list semantics and throttling behavior. What remains unspecified is the exact response structure (array vs. wrapper) and whether error severity or description fields accompany the code.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'serial' parameter already carries a description pointing at hobart_list_machines, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about serial format, case sensitivity, or what happens with an unknown serial. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource and scope: active errors on a dishwasher, including error code and start time. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like hobart_get_temperatures or hobart_machine_overview, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them. The purpose is unambiguous, but the differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool reports active errors, and the 'empty list means no active error was reported, not that the machine is running' note helps interpret results. Missing is any statement about when to reach for this versus hobart_machine_overview or hobart_get_machine_data, or any prerequisite such as needing a serial from hobart_list_machines.

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