device_status

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 states the tool returns 'live connection status' but gives no detail on the response format, error behavior, or whether it requires any authentication. For a status check, an agent would need to know what 'status' means (e.g., online/offline) and what happens if the device_id is invalid. The description omits these critical behavioral aspects.

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 with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage tip adds value. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thin. It fails to explain what the response looks like or how an agent should interpret the status result. Since the output schema is absent, the description should compensate by describing the return value, but it does not. This leaves an agent uncertain about the tool's output, making it incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the only parameter (device_id) including its format and optionality when an environment variable is set. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the live connection status of a device.' It clearly distinguishes this from broadcast/send tools and even from the enhanced sibling by focusing on 'live connection status.' No tautology; the purpose is immediately obvious.

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 gives a concrete usage context: 'Check this before a broadcast so you do not send to a disconnected device.' This implies when to use it and why. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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