pool_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds 'Never starts a vault,' which reinforces read-only behavior and gives a concrete guarantee. It does not disclose return format, rate limits, or auth requirements, but given the annotations, this is adequate.

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 sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action ('Read BP health, versions, KES, policy and ladder coverage') and then adds a critical safety constraint. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description covers what it reads and a key behavioral constraint. The lack of an output schema means it does not describe return format, but for a status read it is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 the description has no parameter semantics to add. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding any unnecessary parameter-related content.

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 verb 'Read' and the specific resources: BP health, versions, KES, policy and ladder coverage. It further distinguishes itself by adding 'Never starts a vault,' which differentiates it from rotation_execute. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like pool_audit or pool_checks, so it stops short of fully differentiating among all siblings.

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 a read-only, safe status tool and explicitly excludes vault-starting behavior via 'Never starts a vault.' This gives a negative usage guideline but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over pool_audit or pool_checks, nor does it mention any alternative tools.

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