system_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is a read operation and that missing health sensors lead to an empty list instead of an exception. It does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits, but the key non-obvious behavior for this tool is covered well.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and then adds the important caveat about devices without sensors. It avoids unnecessary detail and every sentence contributes useful information. Minor improvement could come from explicitly naming a related tool or parameter source.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description adequately explains the return behavior for unsupported devices. However, it leaves device_name semantics undocumented and does not point to a sibling tool for discovering valid device names. Given the rich output schema, return values need not be explained, but the parameter gap reduces 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?

There is one required parameter, device_name, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what device_name should contain or how to obtain it. The schema provides only a type and title, so the description fails to compensate for the parameter semantics gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: read system health metrics such as voltage and temperature. It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like system_info or interface_monitor. The purpose is clear without being sibling-differentiated.

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 usage context by noting that not every device exposes sensors and that unsupported devices return an empty list rather than an error. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as system_info or interface_monitor, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a valid device_name from list_devices. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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