lte_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the return shape and typical keys, the 'empty dict, not an error' convention when hardware is absent or the interface doesn't match, and that `interface` is shape-validated before being sent. It omits read-only/auth considerations, but for an observation tool this is solid disclosure.

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-loads the purpose and command, then return values, then edge-case behavior, then validation. Well-structured and mostly earns its sentences, though the return-key enumeration is slightly verbose given an output schema exists.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out (they are, harmlessly). The empty-dict edge case is covered. The main gap is that `device_name` is never explained, which matters at 0% schema coverage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so params are undocumented structurally. The description explains `interface` semantics (must match an LTE interface, validated for shape) but says nothing about `device_name`, leaving half the parameters unexplained in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: fetch the signal/status of one LTE/5G modem interface, and even names the underlying command (`/interface/lte/monitor <interface> once=yes`). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling `lte_interfaces` (which lists interfaces) and `interface_monitor` (generic monitoring).

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 implies usage (query status of a single named interface) and explains the empty-dict convention shared with `poe_status`/`system_health`, but it never explicitly says when to use this instead of `lte_interfaces` or `interface_monitor`. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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