Control status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly describes what the tool checks (API reachability, input allowed) and what it reports (pid/version, send_input gate, control.json path), effectively conveying that this is a read-only informational operation. It could optionally state explicitly that it has no side effects, but the verb 'Check' and the listed reports make this sufficiently clear.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a specific usage directive. No redundant words or filler, perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 zero-parameter status check with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, what it reports, and when to call it. It gives enough detail for an agent to invoke it and understand the result without needing additional context.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since the schema already covers an empty object fully.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the resource ('hyperpanes control API') along with the two key questions: reachability and input-allowed status. It also lists the specific outputs (pid/version, send_input gate, control.json path), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from action-oriented siblings like send_input.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first if other control tools fail,' which is clear, actionable guidance for when to use this tool. It does not state when not to use it, but for a diagnostic status check, this single directive is sufficient to guide selection.

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