Health and last crash

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the trailing "Read-only" largely restates that. What the description adds beyond annotations is substantive: it discloses the platform-dependent payload (Pi-side sensors only on PiStorm/Emu68) and, importantly, that the crash report only covers the period since the Amiga booted, which is a real scoping caveat not expressible in annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the platform-specific payloads, then the usage trigger and safety note. It is long and list-dense in the middle, and the closing "Read-only" duplicates the annotations, but no sentence is genuinely wasted given the breadth of what is returned.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so concretely for both hardware variants, including the boot-scoped caveat on the guru meditation record. An agent can decide to call it and interpret the result without further documentation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on what the parameterless call returns, which is the useful thing here.

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 ("Report the machine's health") and then enumerates exactly what is reported, split by platform: PiStorm/Emu68 (temperature, voltages, clocks, under-voltage, throttling, 68k speed, JIT cache) versus every Amiga (free chip/fast memory with largest blocks, last guru meditation code). This is far more specific than any sibling such as amiga_info or amiga_ps, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: "when the machine seems slow or after a crash." That is clear context for selection, but it names no alternative tool, so an agent cannot tell from this text whether amiga_info, amiga_ps, or amiga_slots would be a better first call for a given symptom.

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