Matic dust bag report

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent), yet the description adds substantive behavioral context the schema cannot: the robot has no fill gauge and only reports full/missing flags, and incomplete data may mean uncounted runs. The caveat about 'complete'/'counted_from' tells the agent how to interpret and warn about results.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the contents list, then add the two interpretive caveats. Every clause carries information; the field enumeration is long but necessary because there is no output schema to describe it.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it lists the reported fields (swap date, days, runs, seconds, full/missing flags, previous bags, remaining-life estimate) and explains the data-completeness condition. Nothing an agent needs to call and correctly interpret this tool is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing further for the description to clarify about inputs.

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 names a specific report (dust bag usage since the last bag swap) and enumerates exactly what it contains, so the agent knows the resource and content. It does not distinguish itself from the adjacent matic_record_bag_swap, which is the one sibling an agent might confuse it with.

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?

Usage is implied by the content description (query bag status/life when you need that data), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against matic_status or matic_history. Nothing is misleading, but the agent must infer the trigger.

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