get_telemetry

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing beyond the core read action. It does not mention return format, ordering, limits, permissions, or whether readings are aggregated. The word 'Get' implies read-only but no side-effect details are confirmed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no verbose or redundant wording. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it perfectly concise.

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 simple get tool with fully described parameters, the description gives a minimal but sufficient overview. However, with no output schema, it does not explain the shape of the reading data (e.g., time series, metric grouping), which is a notable gap. The period parameter is covered by the schema enum, but return semantics remain unspecified.

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 100%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds marginal semantic value by noting the time period, but it doesn't clarify metric filtering or the meaning of device_id beyond the schema's own descriptions. 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('historical sensor readings'), and object scope ('for a device over a time period'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like read_device (likely current state) and send_command. The term 'historical' adds precise semantic differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer use cases. No exclusions or comparison to siblings such as 'use read_device for current state' are provided.

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