get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It specifies that the output includes counts of lights on/off, active sensors, connected bridges, and total devices, which gives useful behavioral information. However, it does not disclose response format, potential errors, or whether the data is live or cached. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 a single well-structured sentence with the key phrase 'Quick summary' front-loaded. It wastes no words and clearly enumerates the contents of the summary.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and what it returns. The list of counts (lights on/off, active sensors, connected bridges, total devices) forms a complete picture for an AI agent to decide when to call this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema is empty and the description adds no parameter info, but the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 it provides a 'Quick summary' of counts for lights, sensors, bridges, and devices. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_lights and get_sensors, which likely return detailed individual records. The verb 'summary' plus resource categories makes purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Quick summary' implies this is for high-level overviews, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternative getter tools or exclude specific scenarios. There is no mention of alternatives or when-not-to-use, so the usage guidance is only implied.

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