get_all_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavior: failures are reported individually rather than failing the call, which is valuable. However, it does not mention response format (though output schema exists), potential latency, or any side effects, leaving the safety profile somewhat implicit.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a critical behavioral note. Efficient and well-structured.

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 an output schema exists and there are no parameters, the description covers the core purpose and a key failure mode. It does not explicitly differentiate from list_devices or get_status, but the name and description make the distinction clear enough. The only minor gap is explicit usage routing, which is already scored under usage_guidelines.

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, and the input schema is empty. The description correctly focuses on the operation itself. With no params, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('the state of every device in the registry'), and a scope (all devices). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_status (single device) and list_devices (likely just identifiers) without needing to open schemas.

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 its use case: retrieve the state of all devices at once, contrasted with single-device tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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