rp_device_diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds a useful negative capability ('Cannot verify running app/OS/FPGA identity') and hints at bounded scope, but lacks further behavioral context such as what the metadata includes or any rate/permission constraints. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the key limitation. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero parameters, a full output schema, and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It conveys the core action and a critical limitation. A brief mention of what 'app metadata' entails could push it to a 5, but for this complexity level it is sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any input semantics, and the schema coverage is 100%.

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 a verb ('Read') and a resource ('bounded HTTP app metadata'), but 'bounded HTTP app metadata' is jargon that does not clearly differentiate this tool from siblings like rp_system_diagnostics or rp_connection_status. The negative scope statement ('Cannot verify running app/OS/FPGA identity') adds some clarity but leaves the core purpose somewhat vague.

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 (read app metadata) and gives one explicit 'when not' condition (identity verification), but it does not name alternatives or specify when to choose this tool over rp_system_diagnostics or other siblings. Guidance is only implied.

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