Agent Farm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a 'status check' and returns data, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'verdict' and 'stats' entail. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to guide safe and effective use.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two short sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and return values. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and scope, the second lists outputs. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for returns).

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 complexity (implied by health monitoring), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the meaning of return values like 'verdict' or 'stats', behavioral aspects, or error conditions. For a tool with no structured data to supplement it, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it 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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is needed, and the description doesn't detract from the schema's completeness.

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's purpose as a 'quick status check' for 'colony health', specifying it returns specific data points (verdict, issues, active colonies, stats). It distinguishes from siblings like 'colony_status' by emphasizing 'ONE CALL' and 'quick', though it doesn't explicitly contrast functionality. The verb 'check' and resource 'colony health' are specific, avoiding tautology.

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 provides minimal usage guidance, implying it's for a fast, single-call health check, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites, or alternatives. It doesn't specify when to choose this over similar tools like 'colony_status' or 'system_health_swarm', leaving the agent to infer based on 'quick' and 'ONE CALL' without clear exclusions or context.

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