get_raw_telemetry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the output is a 'full normalized telemetry snapshot', indicating the data is normalized and complete, which is behavioral context not present in the annotations. This enhances understanding without contradicting any annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core purpose ('full normalized telemetry snapshot as JSON') and then adds a clarifying audience note. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema already defined, the description is sufficient. It states what the tool returns and who it is intended for. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer siblings, but the 'full' vs specific distinction is implied, and the presence of an output schema means return format is already documented. Overall, it covers what an agent needs to 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is trivially 100% because there are no properties to document. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no parameter-specific information, but none is required.

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 states the tool returns 'the full normalized telemetry snapshot as JSON', which clearly identifies the resource and the format. The qualifiers 'full' and 'normalized' help distinguish it from siblings like get_truck_state or get_fuel_status, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself. This is clear and specific enough to avoid confusion.

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 says it is 'for power users / debugging', which implies the intended use case: when a user needs the complete raw snapshot for debugging rather than a focused subset. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the user audience hint provides clear context about when this tool is appropriate.

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