homestead_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool works with nothing running, returns a per-component check (corpus, index, embeddings, server), and includes a 'next' field with a fix. It stops short of explicitly stating it is side-effect free or covering auth/rate limits, but for a status check this is strong coverage.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, sibling contrast and usage timing, and return shape. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: a check per component and a 'next' field with a fix. It also covers when to call it and how it differs from homestead_health. Missing details (e.g., exact check value formats) are not needed for correct selection and invocation.

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 accepts zero parameters and the schema is empty, so description cannot add parameter meaning. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the schema already covers everything.

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 and resource ('Check whether this machine's library is set up and ready to search') and explicitly differentiates from the sibling homestead_health by noting it 'works with nothing running'. An agent can distinguish this tool from its siblings without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'call it FIRST when a search fails or when setting a library up'. It also names the alternative (homestead_health) and the differentiating condition ('unlike homestead_health this works with nothing running'), leaving nothing to inference.

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