Invokera Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning the 'pending usage-event count' and the return value 'ok', giving agents insight into the response without needing an output schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Service health check'), and every word adds value. No filler or repetition.

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 health check with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what it returns ('ok'), and includes the notable pending-count detail. Sibling context shows this is a distinct simple read operation.

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 and the schema is fully covered (100%), so the description has no burden to explain params. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the service behavior rather than parameter syntax.

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 'Service health check' which is a specific verb+resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools (get_llms_txt, get_robots_txt) by focusing on health status rather than file retrieval. The additional detail 'pending usage-event count' further specifies the tool's unique function.

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 purpose implies use for checking service health, and the distinction from siblings is evident from the description. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use alternatives, though the zero-parameter setup and clear health intent make the guidance adequate.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers safety. The description adds 'Returns: ok,' but this is ambiguous—it could mean the tool returns the constant string 'ok' or that it completes successfully. It does not explain what the actual output is (e.g., the content of llms.txt), and this could mislead an agent expecting the file's text.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one short phrase plus a return note. It is front-loaded with the key resource name and purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant elaboration.

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 read-only tool, the description provides enough to know what the tool targets, but it lacks clarity on the return value. The 'Returns: ok' line is unhelpful because it doesn't specify whether the tool returns the llms.txt content or a status code. Given no output schema, the description should be more explicit about what the agent will receive.

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 input schema is empty (no parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly says nothing about them. Since there are no parameters to clarify, this score reflects the tool's simplicity.

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 identifies the resource (llms.txt) and describes it as an 'AI-readable overview of the site,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_robots_txt and get_health. The verb 'get' is implied by the tool name, but the description 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 implies usage when an AI agent needs the site's llms.txt file, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_health or get_robots_txt. There are no exclusions or context about when not to use it, so it relies on the tool name and resource mention to convey usage.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds 'Returns: ok,' but this is vague and does not clarify whether the response contains the robots.txt content or simply an ok status. Some extra context is provided, but it is not comprehensive.

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 extremely short, with two fragments, and is front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Returns: ok' segment is of limited value and could be misleading, but the overall conciseness is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 tool with good annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. However, the return value is only vaguely described as 'ok,' and without an output schema, the agent is left uncertain about the exact response format.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema fully captures all inputs. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 identifies the resource (robots.txt) and its role as crawler policy, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_health and get_llms_txt. However, it lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name for the action.

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 versus alternatives. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving usage context entirely implied.

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