get_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing 'Connects to the pedal if needed' — a connection-establishing side effect an agent should expect — and by enumerating return fields when no output schema exists. It doesn't say what happens on connection failure or how long the connect may take.

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 result payload, and every listed field earns its place given the absence of an output schema. Slightly list-heavy but no 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields returned. The remaining gap is error behavior when the pedal cannot be reached, which the 'if needed' clause gestures at but doesn't specify.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing arguments.

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 names a specific verb-implied resource ('Connection and pedal status') and enumerates exactly what comes back: firmware, serial, battery, active preset, tempo, link type, and warnings. That makes the tool's output distinguishable from a settings dump. It stops short of contrasting with siblings like get_settings or get_system_state, which read adjacent state.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the go-to read for connectivity and current pedal state. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to get_settings or get_system_state when those overlap.

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