dss_device_online_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool checks status, which is a read operation. It does not mention whether the check is real-time, if any special permissions are required, or what the response format looks like. Minimal context is provided beyond the basic function.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It contains no fluff or redundant information, efficiently stating the core function.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable context. It states the action but does not describe the return format, whether it returns a list or single status, or any limitations. This is adequate but lacks completeness for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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%, with both device_id and device_codes having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how the parameters relate, where to obtain valid device codes, or any format expectations. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters.

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 states the tool's function: checking online/offline status of devices in Dahua DSS. The verb 'check' and specific resource 'online/offline status of devices' make the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like dss_device_info, which may also provide status information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or when another tool like dss_list_devices or dss_device_info might be more appropriate. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and basic description.

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