usb_temp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'read-only', which is a useful safety trait, but it doesn't describe the return format, error behavior, or any operational constraints. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely returns a sensor reading.

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 sentence, but it is under-specified. It earns its place but leaves out essential context like return value and usage. It is not verbose, but it is too sparse to be considered well-structured.

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's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description should still clarify what the agent gets back and how it differs from USB-related siblings. It doesn't mention the return format or any units, and it doesn't differentiate from usb_devstat or usb_disk. An agent would likely be uncertain about the output.

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 and the schema is empty. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't contradict the schema, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 the resource (USB temperature) and the read-only nature, which distinguishes it from mutation tools, but it lacks a verb like 'get' or 'read' and doesn't specify what exactly is returned (e.g., value, units). It is not a tautology but is very close to the tool name, providing minimal additional meaning.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like usb_devstat or usb_disk. It doesn't mention any conditions, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess.

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