vector_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying that this is a read-only status query. The verb 'Get' strongly implies a non-mutating operation, and the examples reinforce that it returns status information. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, connection requirements, or whether any side effects exist, though for a status read these are less critical.

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 front-loads the main action and resource. It provides useful examples without unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, this description is largely sufficient: it names the tool's purpose and gives representative fields. It could be slightly more complete by noting that it returns a general status snapshot rather than a single status category, but the low complexity keeps the gap minor.

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, so parameter semantics are effectively irrelevant. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description need not explain parameters, and it does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('robot status'), with concrete examples like battery level and charging state. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling status tools such as vector_charger_status or vector_proximity_status, but the general scope is understandable.

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 the many sibling status tools (charger_status, touch_status, proximity_status). It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when to select it.

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