Server Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return content and format ('Markdown status card'), but does not explicitly state read-only safety, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. 'Return' implies a safe read, but this is not made fully explicit.

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 purpose and followed by return format. It is appropriately sized and contains no wasted text.

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 low complexity, empty input schema, and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It names the included status fields and return format, though it lacks explicit usage routing and safety details.

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 there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the scoring rule, zero parameters establish a baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the current ThreatWatch server status.' It also enumerates what the status includes (configured API sources, watch-list size, pending alert count), distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_ioc or get_alerts.

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?

Usage is implied by the status-checking purpose, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. An agent can infer it is for server health/status, but no routing guidance is provided.

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