get_routine_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real value beyond that: it discloses that inbox delivery is local polling rather than a push or audible alarm, which prevents an agent from assuming real-time alerting. It does not describe freshness/staleness of the heartbeat data or error formatting, leaving a gap for a diagnostic tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with the returned data front-loaded and the delivery caveat placed as a trailing clarification. No filler, though the first sentence is a dense list that could be marginally more scannable.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the burden of indicating what comes back, which it does at a category level (heartbeat, errors, per-occurrence outcomes, suppression, inbox). With zero parameters and read-only annotations, this is nearly sufficient, but it lacks detail on data freshness and the shape of occurrence outcomes.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description instead characterizes the scope of what is returned, which is the only parameter-like semantics available here.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and enumerates the exact resources surfaced: runner heartbeat/errors, per-occurrence outcomes, automatic-write suppression, and the local notification inbox. This is distinguishable from sibling status tools (get_setup_status, get_device_status, check_water_status), though terms like 'runner heartbeat' and 'automatic-write suppression' are domain jargon an agent may not fully resolve.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the many sibling status tools (get_setup_status, get_device_status, list_routines) and no stated preconditions. The only qualifying sentence concerns notification delivery mechanics, not tool selection.

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