dsh_web_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only status check, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, nor does it describe what happens when the Web UI is down or how errors are reported.

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose, includes the relevant port, and mentions the session count. Every part contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple and the single optional parameter is already documented, but there is no output schema and the description does not specify the return format, such as a boolean plus count. Given the low complexity, this is adequate but leaves some ambiguity about the exact result structure.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter, including the default port value. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clear verb and resource: checking whether the DeepSeek Harness Web UI is running on port 3080 and getting an active session count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dsh_web_start and dsh_web_stop, though the phrase "list active sessions count" is slightly awkward and could be interpreted as either listing sessions or returning a count.

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 no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of dsh_list_sessions for detailed session inspection, or dsh_web_start/stop for lifecycle management, so the agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.

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