device_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' note adds nothing new. The description says nothing about what the 10 bytes encode, error behavior for an unreachable device, or whether a connection is required — the substantive behavioral gaps for a hardware query.

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 terse fragments with no filler, and the resource identity comes first. The only wasted token is 'Read-only', which merely repeats the annotation.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only hints at the payload ('10 bytes') without explaining how to interpret the status vector or its fields. For a single-parameter read tool this is borderline adequate but leaves the return value opaque.

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 a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains device_id and its provenance ('from device_list'). The description adds no extra semantics, so the baseline 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 names the resource (ADC/channel status vector, DEVICE_STATUS, 10 bytes) but supplies no verb, relying on 'Read-only' to imply retrieval. It does not differentiate from siblings that also report device state, such as device_pool_state or device_ble_state, leaving the agent to guess which status it returns.

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 versus the many sibling state tools (device_pool_state, device_ble_state, device_detail, board_info). No prerequisites are given, such as whether the device must be connected or flashed first.

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