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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the query is for historical readings (implying read-only) but does not disclose pagination behavior, data retention limits, permission requirements, or error scenarios. More transparency is needed for a query tool with no annotations.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a succinct parameter list. No unnecessary words. Front-loads the core function, making it easy to scan.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description explains purpose and parameters adequately but lacks details on return format (e.g., timestamp format, measurement units), rate limits, or error handling. It is functional but not fully complete for an agent to use without assumptions.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'did' as BLE device ID, 'hours' as query recency (default 24), 'limit' as max results (default 100). This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and types, though further details like units could improve clarity.

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 queries historical temperature and humidity readings from a Bluetooth sensor for trend analysis. It specifies the resource (BLE sensor readings) and action (query history), distinguishing it from siblings like get_ble_sensor (likely current data) and list_ble_devices (listing devices).

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 usage for trend analysis but does not explicitly state when to use or alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use or comparisons to sibling tools like get_ble_sensor. The purpose is clear, but usage context is only implied.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavior beyond being a read operation. It does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or limitations, relying solely on the minimal 'get the latest data' phrasing.

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 short and includes an Args section, making it structured and easy to parse. It is concise with no redundant information, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without losing brevity.

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 the simple nature of the tool (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basics. However, it lacks details on return format, error conditions, or what '设备详情' includes, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 input schema has one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds an example format ('blt.3.xxxxx') for the 'did' parameter, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, no further details like validation rules or acceptable values are given.

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 the latest temperature, humidity, and device details for a BLE sensor. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_ble_readings (likely more general) and get_device (general device).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description only states what it does without mentioning exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Description implies read-only ('获取详情') but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or side effects. Lacks disclosure of behavioral traits beyond the action.

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 concise lines plus an Args section. Every sentence is meaningful with no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for a simple getter tool, though could mention if it requires authentication.

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?

Schema has one parameter 'did' with 0% description coverage. Description adds 'Args: did: 设备ID', clarifying that 'did' is the device ID, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type requirement.

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?

Description clearly states '获取设备详情，包含设备规格、可用属性列表和动作列表' (Get device details, including specifications, available property list, and action list). This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_devices' which lists all devices.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the purpose is straightforward, and the context of siblings makes it implied that this is for a specific device's details. Missing when-not or exclusion conditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is destructive. The description carries the full burden but only states functionality.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with a clear 'Args' section. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return structure, error cases, or usage context relative to siblings. Minimally complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value by labeling 'home_id' as '家庭ID' (home ID), but this is nearly redundant with the parameter name and does not specify format, constraints, or source of the ID.

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 it retrieves home details including the list of devices, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_homes' and 'get_device'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_homes' for all homes, 'get_device' for a specific device). No exclusions or context provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden to disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the basic read operation and does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or potential errors. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 concise with a single sentence followed by an Args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is written only in Chinese, which may limit accessibility for non-Chinese-speaking agents, but within its context it is efficient.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the basic operation but omits details on return format, error handling, or any special behaviors. For a simple read tool, it is partially complete but could be more informative.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'did' is identified as device ID, and 'prop_name' is given with examples (power, brightness, temperature). This provides essential meaning beyond the schema's basic type definitions.

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 that the tool reads device property values, with concrete examples like light brightness, air conditioner temperature, and switch status. It effectively identifies the verb and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_device'. However, the sibling 'set_property' provides contrast.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the sibling list.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it lists devices and returns readings, which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly disclose whether it is safe, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The description lacks behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 a single efficient sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. Every word is necessary, no filler.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete for a list tool. It mentions the type of returned data. However, it could be improved by noting whether the list is paginated or if there are any filtering capabilities.

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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per instructions. The description adds value by explaining the return content (device info and latest temperature/humidity readings), which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 it lists all registered BLE sensor devices and returns device info with latest temp/humidity readings. It distinguishes from siblings like list_devices which likely lists all device types, and get_ble_readings which may return historical readings.

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 this tool is for getting an overview of BLE sensors, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Siblings include get_ble_readings and get_ble_sensor, but the description does not differentiate use cases or provide exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses caching behavior (refresh parameter) and that it returns read-only device information. It is adequate for a list operation, though no explicit read-only declaration.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, then parameter details. Front-loaded and efficient, no wasted words.

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 no output schema and lack of annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return values sufficiently. Could mention potential limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits) but not required for a simple list tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: home_id filters by home, refresh forces cache refresh. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states it lists all Xiaomi smart devices and returns key attributes (ID, name, model, online status). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_device (single device) and list_ble_devices (BLE-specific devices).

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 usage for listing all devices with optional filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. Context from sibling tools suggests differentiation, but not stated.

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

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

The description adds some transparency about the refresh parameter controlling cache forcing, but no annotations exist. It does not mention read-only nature or any other behavioral traits beyond caching.

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 extremely concise: a single purpose sentence and an Args line. No unnecessary information.

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?

While it covers the tool's purpose and the single parameter, it lacks details about the return format or any prerequisites. With no output schema, some description of the output would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the refresh parameter's meaning ('whether to force refresh cache'), adding value beyond the schema's title alone.

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 it lists all homes and their device overview (specific verb+resource). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_home, though the name implies it.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_home for a single home, or list_devices for devices). The description only states what it does.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses caching behavior via the 'refresh' parameter, but does not state if the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The read-only nature is implied by 'list', but not explicit.

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 very concise: one line for purpose and bullet points for arguments. No unnecessary information, each sentence earns its place.

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?

The description lacks details about the return format. With no output schema, the agent does not know what fields are returned (e.g., scene ID, name, state). This is a gap given the context of sibling tools like run_scene that likely need scene IDs.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides Chinese explanations for both parameters: '按家庭ID过滤' (filter by home ID) and '是否强制刷新缓存' (whether to force refresh cache), which adds value beyond the schema's type and default.

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 '列出所有米家场景' (List all Mi Home scenes), which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_scene, which executes a scene.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical workflows, or conditions that would favor this tool over others like list_devices or get_device.

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

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

No annotations provided. Description only implies mutation (execute actions) but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, error handling, or return behavior. For a mutation tool, more behavioral context is necessary.

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?

Extremely concise and well-structured: one-line purpose followed by parameter list. No wasted words.

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. Description lacks information about return values, success/failure indications, or idempotency. Incomplete for a command execution tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially. did and action_name are well-described with examples. value is only described as 'optional parameters' with no structure, leaving ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'execute' and resource 'device actions', with examples like start-sweep and playing music. Differentiates from read-oriented siblings like get_property. However, could be more specific about the exact scope of actions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_scene. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions that the scene triggers 'all device operations preset' but does not disclose side effects, destructive potential, or failure behavior.

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 very short and to the point, but lacks structure or additional information that would improve usability. It is concise but under-specified.

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 the low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description could be considered minimally adequate, but it omits important details such as return values, error handling, or effects on the system.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal extra meaning ('场景ID' for scene_id) beyond the schema's type definition. It does not explain how to obtain the scene ID or any constraints.

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 action ('execute a Mijia scene') and identifies the resource ('scene'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_scenes' and 'run_action'. However, it is only in Chinese and lacks additional context for non-Chinese users.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or conditions provided. The description only specifies the parameter without usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose important behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling for invalid property names or values. As a mutation tool, critical behaviors are omitted.

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 concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, though the Args format could be slightly more compact. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description does not explain return values (e.g., success/failure) or prerequisites (e.g., device online, auth). For a mutation tool with three parameters and no structured guidance, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 input schema provides only types (string) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates effectively by explaining each parameter: did as device ID, prop_name with examples like 'power', 'brightness', 'temperature', and value with common types and example values ('on'/'off', 0-100).

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 it sets device property values to control devices, with concrete examples like '开灯、调亮度、设温度' (turn on light, adjust brightness, set temperature). It distinguishes from sibling tools such as get_property (read) and list_devices (list).

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 provides examples of when to use the tool (controlling devices by setting properties) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for similar tasks like run_action or run_scene. The usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.

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