get_device_status

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states that the tool returns watering state and rain delays. It does not disclose whether the status includes additional fields, whether there are side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loaded, and no wasteful text. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one required parameter and an output schema exists. The description covers the main functionality (watering state, rain delays) but is not exhaustive. Given the simplicity of the tool, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, but the description provides meaningful context for the parameter: 'device_id: Device ID from list_devices.' This tells the agent where to obtain the ID, adding value beyond the schema alone. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it partially compensates for the gap.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get current status of a specific device including watering state and rain delays.' The verb 'Get' indicates a read operation, and the resource 'status of a specific device' is precisely defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like enable_rain_delay or start_watering, which are mutations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for reading device status, but does not compare to other getters like get_zone_details or list_devices. Usage context is inferred from the tool name and sibling set.

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