Operational snapshot for the caller's tenant: KB version + freshness, queue depths (itineraries / draft meetings / active nudges), and the recent tool-invocation tail. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true; the description adds 'Read-only' and details the snapshot contents, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and contents; the second is a standalone safety note.
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?
Given no output schema, the description partially lists returned data categories but lacks explicit structure (e.g., format of 'queue depths'). For a 0-parameter tool, this is a moderate gap.
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 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it correctly omits any.
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 it provides an 'operational snapshot' and lists specific data: KB version, freshness, queue depths, and recent tool-invocation tail. It distinguishes itself from sibling navigation tools like 'find_room' or 'route_between' by focusing on tenant-level status.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. However, the sibling tools are navigation-focused, implying this is for high-level status, but the description lacks direct guidance on context or exclusions.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: accessibility routes, general routes, access checks, room finding, nearby amenities, operational overview, day planning, prohibited items, and readiness check. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and are descriptive. While most follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_access, find_room), a few are noun-only (nearby, overview), but the overall pattern is consistent and predictable.
9 tools is well within the ideal range for a domain-specific server. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy, and the count feels appropriate for the Capitol complex navigation and visitor support domain.
The tool set covers core domains: navigation, accessibility, room lookup, amenities, security restrictions, and day planning. Minor gaps like event scheduling or tour information exist, but the essential use cases are well-covered.