get_integration_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: 'Read-only: detection never writes' explicitly declares the safety profile, and the enumerated state vocabulary ('integrated', 'detected_not_integrated', 'stale', 'not_detected', 'ignored') tells the agent what the operation can conclude. It does not say whether detection triggers a fresh probe or returns cached state, which is exactly what 'stale' implies an agent might want to know.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the state vocabulary. No filler. Minor deduction for the leftover RST literal markup (double backticks) and the escaped quoting artifacts, which add noise without meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and with zero parameters there is little surface area to cover. What remains missing is the operational follow-through — what a given state implies the agent should do next — but the definition is otherwise sufficient to call the tool 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the implicit scope of 'each installed harness', which the schema cannot express.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report whether each installed harness can reach Mesh as a controller.' That is concrete enough that an agent can distinguish it from list_harnesses (which enumerates harnesses) and install_integration (which mutates). It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers this is the diagnostic to run when it needs to know whether a harness is wired up. There is no explicit 'use this when X, use install_integration when Y', and no statement of prerequisites or what to do with a 'stale' or 'not_detected' result. The routing to sibling tools is left to inference.

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