Get Stations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It signals a read-only operation and lists returned fields, but it does not clarify semantics like what 'seconds remaining' refers to, whether disabled stations are included, or whether the data is live versus cached.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical field list is compact and meaningfully specifies what 'current status' includes.

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 simple getter with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete. It could add a brief note about selecting this tool over related status tools, but that gap is primarily a usage-guidance issue.

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?

There are zero parameters, so parameter-level documentation is unnecessary. The description adds useful scope by stating 'all stations' and listing the response contents, meeting the baseline for a param-less tool.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Get all stations') and enumerates the returned status fields (running, enabled, names, seconds remaining). This clearly distinguishes it from controller, program, and action-oriented sibling tools.

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 implies this is the tool for retrieving station status, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like get_controller_status. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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