lira_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds real context beyond that: output varies by connection state, and the tool will not launch LIRA. It stops short of stating failure behavior when LIRA is absent or disconnected.

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 short sentences, with the primary answer (versions in use, connection state) front-loaded and the conditional extra content placed after it. Slight redundancy in phrasing ('that LIRA release') but no filler sentences.

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 return values need not be described; the description still usefully flags that the payload changes depending on connection state and mentions the tools-availability list. For a zero-parameter status tool with annotations, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs and nothing misleading is said about them.

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?

Names a specific resource (LIRA installation status) and enumerates exactly what is reported: installed versions, the active version, and connection state. The conditional clause ('when connected, also lists...') plus 'Does not start LIRA' separates it from action siblings like lira_open_model and lira_run_analysis.

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 only implied — an agent infers it should call this to check whether LIRA is present/connected. The one explicit boundary, 'Does not start LIRA', is useful but there is no statement of when to prefer this over siblings such as lira_list_models or lira_list_input_tables, nor any prerequisite guidance.

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