Inspectable State: report Yeehaw's operational state in one call (no input) — event counts, last successful ingest per source vs cadence, cron health, open circuit breakers, recent error tail, and coverage gaps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly frames the operation as a read-only report of state, which implies no mutation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, access requirements, latency, or whether the returned data is sampled or comprehensive. The listed contents help but leave open questions about behavior.
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, dense sentence that wastes no words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Inspectable State') and then packs a comprehensive list of report contents into an em-dash-separated tail, making it both efficient and scannable.
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 complex operational state report with no output schema and no annotations, the description lists categories but does not specify return format, field names, pagination, or error behavior. It is sufficiently complete for basic selection but leaves gaps for an agent that needs to parse or rely on the response.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces the no-input expectation and implicitly explains that the tool returns a broad snapshot rather than requiring filters. Since the schema is just an empty object, the description adds meaningful context about what the tool covers.
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 uses a specific verb ('report') and identifies the resource ('Yeehaw's operational state') with a clear scope ('in one call (no input)'). It enumerates the contents (event counts, ingest status, cron health, circuit breakers, error tail, coverage gaps), which fully differentiates it from the sibling tool find_events.
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 implies usage as a quick no-input state check but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus find_events or other alternatives. The sibling tool is not mentioned, and there are no exclusions or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
find_events and overview have clearly distinct purposes: one queries events, the other reports system health. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both use snake_case, but find_events follows a verb_noun pattern while overview is a standalone noun. Minor inconsistency but still readable.
Only 2 tools for an events server feels underdeveloped. Typically such servers offer at least basic CRUD, making this count too low for the apparent scope.
Lacks essential operations like creating, updating, or deleting events. Only query and system health are present, leaving significant gaps.