Get DG-LAB status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that setting refresh causes a re-query of device lists from the paired apps first. There is no contradiction with any annotation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose with a compact but complete enumeration of what is read, and the second sentence crisply explains when and why to set refresh.

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 read-only tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent should expect: relay state, safety lease, app/device details, and waveform tasks. Optional parameter disambiguation is already provided by the input schema, and the refresh side-effect is disclosed. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, and the schema already explains slotId, refresh, and clientId thoroughly. The description does restate the refresh behavior, but it adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Read relay state...' and enumerates the full scope of the status payload: safety lease, paired apps, device battery, Bluetooth state, intensities, channel condition, mute, comfort limits, ceilings, and waveform tasks. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling mutation/control tools such as dglab_set_intensity or dglab_emergency_stop.

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 leading verb 'Read' and the detailed state inventory make the intended usage obvious: fetch current DG-LAB status whenever the agent needs device/app/safety state. The refresh condition is also stated explicitly. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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