coronium_get_p0f_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'List,' but does not explicitly state safety, auth requirements, or error behavior. For a simple getter this is acceptable but not comprehensive; a note confirming it has no side effects would have been stronger.

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. The first sentence states the primary purpose; the second provides a crucial usage hint. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter lookup tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains what will happen (list of valid values) and when to use it. It doesn't describe the exact return format, but the phrase 'List the valid ... values' sufficiently implies the result. Given the tool's simplicity, this is complete enough.

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 input schema covers the sole 'proxy' parameter with 100% coverage, providing a clear description (Modem _id or portId/name). The tool description doesn't add extra parameter context beyond referencing 'for a modem,' so the baseline of 3 is appropriate—schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List the valid OS fingerprint (p0f) values accepted by coronium_set_modem_os for a modem.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('valid OS fingerprint values'), and differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly naming the companion tool it supports.

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 guidance: 'Call this first so you don't guess the OS string.' This explicitly tells the agent to invoke this tool before coronium_set_modem_os, establishing a temporal workflow. It lacks formal alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear and actionable.

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