get_thermal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (sensor name, Celsius reading, upper thresholds, health status), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. This leaves some transparency gaps but is not misleading.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists the returned data. There is no filler or redundant information, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 simple one-parameter getter, the description and schema together are largely complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. While there is no output schema or annotations, the described return fields help the agent understand the expected data. Minor gaps, such as not explaining the exact format of thresholds or health status, prevent a perfect score.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond the input schema. The schema already provides a detailed description for chassis_id, including an example and a pointer to list_chassis. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves thermal data (temperatures and fans) for a chassis, naming the specific resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_power by specifying thermal metrics, and includes return content (sensor name, Celsius, thresholds, health status).

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 context is clear: use this when thermal data for a chassis is needed. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the schema description for the only parameter instructs to use list_chassis for IDs, providing practical guidance. The implied usage is straightforward given the tool's specific purpose.

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