hsportal_level

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'read-only', which tells the agent this operation has no side effects. This is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't explain what the output looks like or any other nuances, but for a read-only query, the read-only hint is essential and is present.

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 concise phrase of four words. It front-loads the resource name and immediately follows with the read-only flag. It is minimal, but not overly sparse because it delivers the core purpose in very few words. The score is not 5 because it lacks a verb and could be slightly more descriptive, but it is still 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 tool is a read-only query with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, with many sibling tools of similar nature, an agent might benefit from knowing what 'level' means precisely or what it returns. The description does not provide enough to distinguish it from 'hsportal_info' without external knowledge. This is a slight gap in 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty rendering schema coverage 100%. The description adds context that this is read-only, which is not in the schema, but the schema already fully describes the parameter surface (none). The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics because there are none; a score of 4 reflects that it appropriately communicates a key aspect (read-only) 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 states 'Hotspot portal level (read-only)' which identifies a resource (Hotspot portal) and a property (level), and explicitly notes it is read-only. However, it doesn't specify a verb like 'get' or 'view' that would make the action unmistakable, though the sibling names like 'hsportal_info' and 'hsportal_setup' suggest a query action. It is not a tautology because the name alone doesn't fully convey the read-only nature.

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. There are siblings like 'hsportal_info' and 'hsportal_setup' that could overlap, but the description does not mention them or any conditions for selecting this tool. An agent would have to infer usage from context.

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