get_thermal_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed thermal readings,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or historical data, or details the response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Detailed thermal readings') and efficiently lists the specific metrics retrieved. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and easy for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple read operation with no parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clearly states what data is retrieved but lacks details on behavioral traits like authentication needs or return format. This meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description efficiently focuses on output semantics without redundant parameter details.

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 states what the tool does ('Detailed thermal readings') and specifies the exact resources it retrieves (CPU temperatures, memory temperatures, ambient, and fan speeds for all zones). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_sensors' or 'get_server_health' by focusing specifically on thermal metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 like 'get_sensors' or 'get_server_health', which might also include thermal data. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or explicit exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and description alone.

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