get_steamos_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden of conveying behavioral traits. The description only states the command to run, with no mention of side effects, read-only nature, required permissions, or output format beyond JSON. This is insufficient for an AI agent to assess risk or guarantees.

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 sentence that captures the essential action. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words.

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 4 parameters with no descriptions and an output schema that is not described, the tool lacks essential context. The description does not explain what the target is, prerequisites (e.g., device connection), or how the output schema relates to the JSON output.

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 schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning neither schema nor the tool description explains the meaning of login, target, http_port, or name_type. The description does not add any semantic value.

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 explicitly states the command run ('steamos-get-status --json') and the resource (the device). It clearly differentiates the purpose from sibling tools that perform other operations like bugreport, logcat, or device diagnostics.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. Sibling tools include other status/diagnostic tools (e.g., deckard_power_status, native_adbd_status), but the description does not clarify when get_steamos_status is appropriate.

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