get_mount_sensor_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It specifies the returned fields but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, error behavior, or authentication requirements. The verb 'Get' implies a non-destructive query, but additional details would improve transparency.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Get the status'), and every word adds value. No filler or redundancy.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (pitch, roll, safe position). It could mention units or what 'safe position' means, but this is a minor gap. Given the tool's low complexity, this is nearly complete.

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 describes the sole parameter 'ip' as the IP address of the Mount Sensor device, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond reinforcing the device type, 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 gets the status of a standalone Mount Sensor device and specifies the returned data (pitch, roll, safe position for roof movement). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_mount_sensors, which likely handles multiple sensors, and ties it to roof operation context.

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 implies a clear use case: before roof movement, to verify the mount is in a safe position. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use get_mount_sensors instead. This is clear context but lacks direct comparison to siblings.

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