output_enforcer_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Get status' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the listing of components gives some insight into what the tool reports. However, it does not describe edge-case behavior, permissions, or whether the status is aggregated or raw, leaving some ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence containing all essential information. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently outlines the key dimensions (violations, circuit breakers, storage health). It does not explain what each term means, but this is likely handled by the output schema. It could add a note about being a summary compared to sibling tools, but for a simple status endpoint, it is complete enough.

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 is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics, and no parameters exist to document.

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 ('Get Output Enforcer status') and enumerates its scope (violations, circuit breakers, storage health). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like output_enforcer_violations and output_enforcer_breakers, which focus on narrower subsets.

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 implies use for overall status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling tools, nor does it mention any alternatives. Since it names the three areas it covers, agents can infer intent, but explicit guidance is absent.

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