backend_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavior. It states the tool reports configuration, implying a read-only action, but doesn't explicitly disclose side effects, permission needs, or any other behavioral traits. It's adequate but minimal.

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, clear sentence that fully conveys the tool's function without extraneous words. It's concise and front-loaded.

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 has no parameters and an output schema (present, though not detailed here). The description adequately covers the tool's purpose. Slight lack of detail about what 'backends' means or whether it's read-only, but given its simplicity)Skip it's 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description doesn't add parameter details, but none are needed.

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 clearly states the tool's verb ('Report') and resource ('which backends are configured and how this server is set up'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (all financial data tools) by focusing on backend/configuration status.

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 context on what it reports but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any usage exclusions. Given the tool's purpose (server status), usage is implied, but no direct guidance on when not to use it.

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