sonoff_device_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states 'Get status'. It does not mention read-only behavior, potential side effects, prerequisites, or what the response contains.

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 short sentence, free of filler. It is front-loaded and concise, though it sacrifices informative detail for brevity.

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 tool has no output schema and interacts with a vendor-specific API. The description provides no context on what 'status' includes, what response format to expect, or how it differs from similar status tools, making it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.

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 input schema already describes both parameters fully (device_id and sonoff_device_id), and the description adds no additional meaning. Per rubric, schema coverage is 100% so baseline 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 'Get status of a Sonoff device' clearly states the action (get) and resource (status of Sonoff device). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sonoff_get_power_usage or sonoff_toggle, and the exact nature of 'status' remains vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sonoff_list_devices, sonoff_get_power_usage, or iot_device_status. There are no exclusions or context hints.

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