Hobart machine overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the composite nature of the call (errors + temperatures + consumption in one shot) and implying a single-round-trip cost advantage, though it does not discuss freshness or limits of the aggregated data.

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, both load-bearing: the first defines the aggregated payload, the second routes the agent away from the three detail tools. Front-loaded with the core purpose and zero filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description effectively enumerates the return categories (errors, temperatures, consumption), which is enough for an agent to know what to expect. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the only minor gap is the precise shape of the aggregated response.

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 parameter is documented in the schema as the serial from hobart_list_machines. The description only refers to 'machine X' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One-call health check of a dishwasher') and enumerates exactly what it returns: active errors, last wash/rinse temperatures, daily consumption. The reference to 'the three detail tools' makes clear it aggregates hobart_get_active_errors, hobart_get_temperatures, and the consumption data, distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

Explicitly says 'Prefer this to calling the three detail tools separately when the question is "how is machine X doing"', naming the alternative and the exact condition that selects this tool. Nothing is left to inference about when to prefer the aggregate over the individual calls.

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