jms_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. 'Probe' suggests a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or what 'local auth state' entails, leaving behavioral expectations under-specified.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words.

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's zero-parameter complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides a sufficient overview. However, it omits any explicit statement of read-only behavior or typical use cases, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 is no parameter information to supplement. The schema trivially covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds no parameter detail because none is needed.

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 uses the verb 'probe' with the resource 'local auth state and the current JumpServer session,' clearly stating the tool's function. It is distinct from siblings like jms_profile or jms_refresh_terminal_auth, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so slightly less clear than the gold standard.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies usage for checking authentication status and session state, which is an inferred context rather than an explicit directive.

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