Hobart temperatures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a 60-second per-machine real-call limit and that faster calls silently return cached data — a caveat an agent otherwise could not know.

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, no waste. Return contents are front-loaded and the operational caveat follows immediately after.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and their unit, and covers the rate-limit/caching behavior. It stops short of explaining the shape of 'last program run' (name vs timestamp vs status), a minor remaining gap for a tool of this simplicity.

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 documents that it comes from hobart_list_machines. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific resources returned — wash tank (A270) and rinse (A283) temperatures in °C plus the last program run — so the agent knows exactly what this yields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like hobart_get_machine_data or hobart_machine_overview, which plausibly overlap.

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 only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it wants temperature readings. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to or away from the overlapping siblings hobart_get_machine_data and hobart_machine_overview.

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