shield_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds which data domains are surfaced (model, Android version, memory, storage, Kodi process), but says nothing about auth requirements, cost, or freshness/latency.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and the full list of inspected items front-loaded. Every word earns its place and there is no boilerplate.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and with zero parameters the input side is trivially complete. The description covers the scope of inspection adequately, though it omits any dependency on shield_connect having run first.

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 there are no argument semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description's enumeration of returned fields is a bonus rather than a compensation for a gap.

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 ('Inspect') plus the resource and enumerates exactly what is retrieved: Shield model, Android version, memory, free storage, and Kodi process. It is clearly distinguishable from the Kodi-only siblings such as kodi_status, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 statement of when to call this rather than kodi_status, kodi_manager_inspect, or shield_connect, and no prerequisites (e.g., must the device be connected first). Usage is only implied by the word 'Inspect'.

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