coronium_get_rotation_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return values (states and IPs) and the backend janitor behavior that auto-clears stale 'rotating' states within 5 minutes. It does not mention error handling, authentication, or side effects, but for a read-only status poll this is reasonably transparent.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: purpose first, then return values, then an operational note about the janitor. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's simple one-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the return payload (status states and IPs) and a notable backend behavior. It provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool will return and how to interpret it.

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 already provides a fully documented 'proxy' parameter with format and examples, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('rotation status for a modem'), and it enumerates the returned states. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rotate_modem or set_rotation_interval, which perform different actions.

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 a clear context for use ('Poll rotation status') but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The mention of the stuck-rotation janitor hints at how to interpret stale states, but there is no direct comparison to other tools like get_proxy or rotate_modem.

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