convoy_owlette

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: host-private scope, the opt-in gate and idempotency requirement for command submission, and the refusal of mcp_tool_call. It stops short of disclosing return format, timeout behavior, pagination, or error semantics for a tool with seven actions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and scope before the preconditions and the exclusion. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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 7-action, 8-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description omits the action vocabulary, the nested params contract, and timeout semantics. What it covers is valuable but far from sufficient to call the tool correctly across all actions.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, including a nested 'params' object that is entirely opaque. The description rescues idempotency_key and implies the id-bearing params via 'site/machine inventory... command status,' but timeout_seconds, command_type, and the action enum values themselves are never explained.

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 names a specific resource ('consumer of Owlette's published API') and enumerates its scope ('site/machine inventory, online detail, and command status'), which maps onto the action enum. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'Owlette is not the Convoy LAN transport,' so an agent can separate it from convoy_call/convoy_batch without opening the 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?

It gives a precondition for the submit_command path (separate local host opt-in plus idempotency key) and a hard exclusion (mcp_tool_call is always refused here). However, it never states when to choose this tool over the numerous convoy_* siblings for inventory or status reads, leaving the read paths' routing implied.

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