floci_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool checks reachability but does not disclose what 'reachable' entails (e.g., HTTP status, latency, auth requirements) or the exact return format. For a health-check tool, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 that is efficient and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It states the action and target clearly.

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 and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not specify the nature of the result (e.g., boolean, status message) or any error handling. A slight gap, but acceptable for a simple health check.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per guidelines, zero parameters warrant a baseline of 4. The description adds no param-specific details because none exist.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('configured Floci instance'), clearly distinguishing this status-check tool from siblings like aws_call and floci_inventory. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 clearly indicates its use case (verifying reachability) which naturally separates it from inventory or calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it when connectivity is in question.

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