get_temperature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the output values and units (Celsius), implying a read-only operation, but does not mention prerequisites like connection state or potential failure modes. It is not misleading but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the return values.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then a clear list of outputs. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 parameterless getter with an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and return values. There are no hidden parameters or nested objects. It is completely adequate for its simplicity.

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 there is nothing to explain. The description still adds value by enumerating the exact return names, which aligns with an intuitive understanding of the tool. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no further information is needed.

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') with a clear resource ('temperature sensor readings') and specifies the three return values (left_motor, right_motor, nordic_die). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from other sensor tools like get_ambient_light or get_motor_thermal_protection_status.

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 such as get_sensor_data or get_motor_thermal_protection_status. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases.

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