get_lm_link_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Display' implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description does not disclose whether this triggers a live network scan, requires the LM Link server to be running, or what happens when no devices are discovered. It is minimally transparent but lacks behavioral detail.

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 of under 15 words, with the category prefix 'Mesh & Network' front-loading context. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose, with no filler or redundant elaboration.

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?

This is a simple status-query tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description conveys the core purpose but omits details about the structure or content of the status information, whether devices are returned as a list, and any operational prerequisites. It is adequate for a trivial tool but not fully complete.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema's properties object is empty, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, there is nothing for the description to add regarding parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools 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 uses a specific verb ('Display') and names the exact resource ('status of LM Link and discovered devices on the mesh'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_lm_link and set_preferred_lm_link_device, which imply control or modification rather than status retrieval.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name.

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