Matic status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed world), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral value: it discloses that the tool never fails on connectivity and that an unreachable robot surfaces as activity 'offline' with a message. It does not say whether status is cached or how fresh it is, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a dense but purposeful enumeration of returned fields, closed by a genuinely useful error-behavior sentence. The middle list is long, but with no output schema each item 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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return value, and it does so thoroughly, including the complete activity enumeration, settings values, and the offline fallback behavior. An agent can call this and interpret the response without further documentation.

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 the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its budget describing the returned payload, which is appropriate given there is no output schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Current robot status') and then enumerates exactly what is reported: activity states, battery %, room, error codes, bag flags, firmware, and settings. This clearly separates it from the command siblings (matic_start_cleaning, matic_pause, matic_dock) and from matic_history.

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 read-only status role is strongly implied by the name and content, but the description never states when to call it versus alternatives such as matic_history or the setting-specific readings. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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