get_api_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly identifies a read-only status query and specifies the return contents (remaining calls and reset time), making side effects predictable. Minor gaps like reset-time format or whether checking status consumes quota are not disclosed, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 short sentences with no redundant filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable information about the response without over-explaining.

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 zero-parameter status endpoint with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the operation, the target, and the return values. The only notable gap is explicit routing guidance against sibling tools, but this is a minor omission given the self-evident purpose and low complexity.

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 the input schema already shows no properties, so the description does not need to document parameter semantics. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and no additional parameter detail is required.

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 specific action and resource: 'Get SwitchBot API rate limit status.' It is clearly distinct from sibling device/control tools like get_device_status or turn_on because it targets API rate limits, not device state or actions. The added detail about remaining calls and reset time makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or preference over sibling tools. Usage is only implied from the tool name and context signals, not explicitly stated.

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