devices

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get status' implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state it as safe or non-destructive. It also does not describe whether data is live or cached, or what specific device information is returned. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful transparency.

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 concise sentence that gets directly to the point. It is short, front-loaded with the action ('Get status'), and includes useful parenthetical detail. No unnecessary words or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is not sufficiently complete. It does not describe what 'status' contains (e.g., battery level, connection state) or what the return format looks like. For a tool with only one simple parameter, more context about the data would help the agent understand what to expect. The lack of clarity on return values makes this tool only minimally 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 input schema has full coverage for the only parameter ('count'), with a clear description: 'Number of device status entries'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies because schema coverage is high and the description does not contradict or add confusion.

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: 'Get status of connected devices' with specific examples (pump, CGM, phone). This verb+resource+example structure makes its purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like glucose_current or analyze, which focus on other data types.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or point to sibling tools for related needs. The only implied context is that it is for device status, but no exclusions or comparison to other tools is provided.

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