claude_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks installation and working state but does not reveal what constitutes 'working,' what output to expect, whether it's idempotent, or if it requires network access. The description leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 efficient sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and earns its place.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate for a simple no-argument check but could be more complete. It doesn't specify return values or error conditions, which would help the agent understand what 'working' means in practice. For a tool of minimal complexity, it's barely 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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description is appropriately minimal as no parameters exist. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there is no gap in parameter understanding.

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 checks if Claude Code CLI is installed and working, specifying both the target (Claude Code CLI) and the action (check install and working state). While it distinguishes from siblings like claude_ask, claude_task, etc. by focusing on installation status rather than functionality, it could be more specific about what 'working' means.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ollama_status or system_status for health checks of other services. There is no explicit discussion of when to use it, when not to use it, or prerequisites.

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