status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently signals that 'racked servers' is a stub, which sets expectations about data quality. The verb 'Return' implies a non-mutating read, though it does not explicitly detail caching, freshness, or error 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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and enumerates return categories without any wasted words. The explicit inclusion of '(stub)' is valuable and does not add bloat.

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 an output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the output categories, identifies the stub item, and has no missing invocation requirements. The only minor gap is explicit sibling differentiation, but the output content already makes that separation visible.

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 input schema is already fully specified and empty. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, the description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none are needed; the tool simply requires no input.

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 the action ('Return') and the resource ('router status'), and enumerates the exact contents: version, racked servers, and health. It also notes that racked servers are a stub, which distinguishes it from the sibling list_rack without ambiguity.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling list_rack. It implicitly suggests status/health checking, but an agent is not told when to choose status instead of list_rack.

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