flipper_uptime

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. The description simply states the read-only get operation but does not disclose connection requirements, error behavior, or side effects (even though it is a safe read). This lack of additional context warrants a 2.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool and earns a 5 for conciseness.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, likely straightforward output covered by the output schema), the description is nearly complete. However, it lacks any hint about when to use this versus other status tools, so a 4 is more appropriate than 5.

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 has zero parameters, and per the baseline guidance, a 0-parameter tool scores 4 by default. The description correctly does not attempt to describe non-existent parameters.

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 the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('the Flipper's uptime since last boot'), making it unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar tools like flipper_status or flipper_power_info, so it earns a 4, not a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives such as flipper_status or flipper_reboot. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring a connection) or context, so this dimension is poorly covered.

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