get_band_status

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: automatic reconnect behavior, the fact that cached reads avoid phone contact, unknown fields being null, numeric bounds for max_age_seconds and timeout_seconds, and no app UI interaction. These are exactly the kind of side-effect and connectivity behaviors an agent needs to know.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence names the resource, the second and third add behavioral constraints, and the final sentence gives parameter bounds. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

The description covers tool scope, read-only monitoring configuration, remote/cached behavior, null handling, numeric parameter ranges, and UI interaction. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. The only notable gap is the underspecified semantics of the freshness enum values.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It provides ranges for max_age_seconds (1..86400) and timeout_seconds (10..90), and the cached/remote distinction clarifies the freshness concept partially. However, it does not define the difference between prefer_fresh and require_fresh, nor how max_age_seconds interacts with freshness.

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 clearly enumerates the content of the tool: band connection, battery, charging, and heart-rate/SpO2/stress monitoring settings. The verb 'get' is present in the tool name)Skip, and the resource scope is concrete. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as get_health_status or get_current_state, but the listed fields are specific enough to differentiate them.

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 clear operational context: remote reads reconnect automatically within the timeout, cached reads never contact the phone, and no app UI interaction occurs. This guides an agent on when to choose cached versus remote freshness. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use this tool.

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