Get Cpu Temperature Support

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what the support check depends on (device model, firmware), whether the result can change, or any caveats. It essentially restates the purpose.

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 short phrase with zero filler, appropriately front-loaded. It cannot be more concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of any structural detail.

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 parameterless boolean capability probe with an output schema that documents the return value, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits any context about what 'support' means or what to do with the answer, leaving it only just adequate.

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, and the schema is fully closed (additionalProperties: false), so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 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 states a specific verb (查询/query) and a specific resource (CPU 温度检测是否支持 – whether CPU temperature detection is supported), which is distinguishable from siblings like get_system_overview or get_memory_history. It is clear but very terse and does not contrast itself with those related monitoring tools.

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 tool versus the many other capability/status queries in the sibling list. The agent must infer that this is a one-shot capability probe with no prerequisites.

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