get_ptp_status

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, local behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: it communicates that communication happens over a configured UDS, that domain values are constrained, and explicitly that ptp4l is never started. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure for a status tool.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no wasted sentences. It could be slightly clearer by expanding or removing ambiguous terms like 'five datasets' and 'configured UDS,' but it remains efficient.

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 and annotations fully cover safety/read-only semantics, so the description does not need to explain return values. It adds enough invocation context for a read-only PTP status query, though the nature of the five datasets remains somewhat opaque.

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 the description carries the full burden for explaining the two parameters. It only restates the domain range (0..127) already encoded in the schema and vaguely mentions 'interface/port association,' without explaining interface naming, what a domain represents, or how the UDS is selected/configured.

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 uses a clear verb ('Query') and resource ('PTP status' via LinuxPTP GET datasets), so an agent can identify the operation. However, jargon like 'five LinuxPTP GET datasets' and 'configured UDS' slightly obscures what exactly is returned, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling status tools such as get_chrony_status.

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 'verify interface/port association' implies a usage context, and 'Never starts ptp4l' clarifies an important constraint. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_chrony_status or inspect_time_services.

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