autonomy_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds value by listing the exact components monitored (perception rate, latency, etc.), giving context beyond the 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?

Single sentence, short and to the point. Every word adds value: 'Read' as verb, then list of items. No fluff.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently states what data it retrieves. It is complete for its simplicity, though could perhaps mention that it returns current live values, but that is implied by 'state'.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema covers 100%. Description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate. No missing information.

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?

Description starts with 'Read', a specific verb, followed by a clear list of what is read: perception rate, latency, controls, watchdog, and emergency state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like autonomy_start or emergency_stop.

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 usage by stating it reads specific status fields, but does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to, nor does it mention alternatives. Given the tool has no parameters and is a read-only status check, the lack of explicit guidance is acceptable but not ideal.

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