api_status

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: it issues GET /admin/user?limit=1 as a liveness probe and returns only the response code, and that the base URL is returned without the secret. It does not cover auth requirements, whether the probe has side effects/cost, or failure 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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the returned fields and appending the probe detail after a semicolon. Dense but every clause earns its place; no padding or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating exactly what comes back (mode, base URL, tool count, spec version). It also flags the availability-check behavior. Missing only auth/permission context for a definition with no annotations.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The mention of the limit=1 query is internal probe detail, not a caller-facing argument.

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 states concretely what the tool surfaces — mode, base URL (sans secret), tool count, and spec version — plus the fact that it runs a live availability probe. That is specific enough to distinguish it from api_search/api_describe in practice, though it never names those siblings explicitly to force the differentiation.

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 as a status/health-check tool is strongly implied by the described outputs and the GET probe, but the description never states when to reach for this instead of api_search or api_describe, nor any preconditions. Adequate, but the agent must infer the routing itself.

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