midnight-docs-status

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

The description discloses that the tool returns cache age and available updates, implying it is a read-only operation with no side effects. However, without annotations, the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or that it requires no authentication, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured if broken into separate points for cache age and updates.

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 simple status-check tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the key information returned (cache age and available updates). It meets the needs for an agent to understand what to expect, though it could mention the return format or any error conditions.

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 input schema has one parameter 'input' which is an empty object with no properties. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify the purpose of this parameter. Since the parameter adds no meaningful input, the description fails to explain why it exists or whether it is optional.

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 action 'Get' and the resource 'status of documentation sync', including specific details like cache age and available updates. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as 'midnight-sync-docs' (which performs sync) and 'midnight-fetch-docs' (which fetches docs), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when a user should check status before calling sync or fetch. The description lacks any usage context such as prerequisites or typical workflow.

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