aa_rea_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful limitation beyond annotations: it does not prove providers are ready or MCP is connected.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted language; purpose is front-loaded and the caveat follows directly. It is appropriately compact, though its brevity leaves gaps that other dimensions penalize.

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 annotations cover safety, but the description does not explain what a probe returns or what the config parameter means. With no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, those gaps matter.

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 one optional config parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions config or explains what it controls, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Probe an existing REA CLI." The title reinforces this as a status check, but the description does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings such as aa_status or aa_rea_run.

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 phrase "existing REA CLI" implies this is for an already-present CLI and the caveat clarifies what the probe does not establish. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives among sibling tools.

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