Get RSSI / Radio Quality

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

Goes well beyond annotations: explains output includes device names, BidCos interface health (duty cycle, connected state), and null meaning. Adds interpretation guidance: higher dBm is better. No contradictions with readOnlyHint or openWorldHint.

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?

Four sentences pack key information: function, coverage, use case, interpretation. No fluff. Front-loaded with core purpose.

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?

Given output schema exists, description covers all needed context: purpose, usage scenario, param filter meaning, behavioral details, and value interpretation. Complete for a diagnostic read-only tool.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the 'name' and 'target' parameters, so baseline score 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?

Clear verb+resource: reports RSSI for all devices. Specifies dBm units and covers both BidCos-RF and HmIP-RF transports. Does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_values, but the tool name and description are specific enough to stand out.

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?

Provides a concrete use case: 'Use to answer why is this sensor flaky?' This gives agents clear context for when to invoke. Lacks explicit alternatives or 'when not to use' statements, but the use case is sufficiently directive.

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