engine_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates a read-only check and version report, but does not explicitly state that no state is modified, nor does it mention error behavior or connectivity caveats.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence covers the action, resource, and expected output without any filler words. It is well front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs to invoke this tool correctly. It would benefit from a brief note about whether any environment context is required, but for a simple status check this is minimally sufficient.

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 the schema leaves nothing unexplained. The description's reference to checking reachability and version provides enough semantic context for a parameterless invocation.

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 a specific verb ('check') and resource ('local CIB seven engine'), and states the additional output of reporting its version. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_process or approve_gate, which target different actions and resources.

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 is clear enough to imply when this tool is appropriate: when an agent needs to verify engine reachability or discover its version. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives.

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