get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain what the tool reports (online, paused, rain delay, watering), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core status information is front-loaded, and the closing phrase adds differentiation without redundancy. Every word 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?

For a simple status tool with no output schema, the description lists the key return categories, which is helpful. However, it omits any explanation of the 'device' parameter, and since there is no output schema, the return structure is only partially specified. The tool is simple enough that this is a moderate gap rather than a fatal one.

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 schema has one parameter, 'device', with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The description does not explain what 'device' refers to, whether it is required, or what happens when it is null. The schema title 'Device' is the only hint, which is insufficient.

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 clearly identifies the resource (a controller) and the specific information returned: online status, on/paused state, rain sensor/delay, and current watering activity. It also distinguishes itself from siblings with 'The one call for "what's my sprinkler doing"', making its purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'The one call for "what's my sprinkler doing"' gives clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to route status queries here.

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