aztec_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool shows available repos and commit hashes, which is sufficient for a simple read-only operation. However, it does not mention any side effects, caching, or potential delays, but given the nature of the tool, this is acceptable.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and concise. Every word serves a purpose, clearly stating the action and the output. 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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the return value (available repos and commit hashes) adequately. A minor improvement could specify the output format, but overall it satisfies the need.

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, and the input schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, this yields a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none.

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 tool checks the status of cloned Aztec repositories, specifying it shows availability and commit hashes. The verb 'check' and resource 'cloned Aztec repositories' are specific, and the tool distinguishes itself from siblings like aztec_search_code or aztec_sync_repos.

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 implies usage when one needs to know the state of cloned repos, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aztec_sync_repos for syncing or aztec_list_examples for examples. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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