read_step_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read' makes the non-destructive nature clear, and 'Number of steps counted' states the return. It does not elaborate on whether this reads a live sensor value, cached data, or what happens if the sensor is unavailable, but for a simple read tool this is minimally adequate.

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 and front-loaded. It states the action and the return value in two short clauses with no filler or repetition.

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 0-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the source (motion sensor) and the return value (number of steps). It could add minor context such as units or whether the value is cumulative, but these are not essential for invoking the 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly omits parameter details because there are none to explain.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read the step counter from the motion sensor.' This distinguishes it from the sibling sensor tools (e.g., read_temperature, read_humidity) because it uniquely targets step count, and the return value is specified.

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: call this tool when the step count is needed from the motion sensor. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like read_all_sensors, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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