lingo_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it partially does so: listing path, version, license expiry, and solver memory tells the agent this is an inspection/read operation with no mutation. However, it never explicitly states read-only behavior, side effects, or what happens when no LINGO 11 installation is found despite the word "detected" implying a conditional result.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource before the list of reported fields. Nothing is wasted, though the colon-list format leaves no room for the usage context that is missing.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return values, and it does enumerate the four key fields (path, version, license expiry, solver memory), which is genuinely useful. The remaining gap is conditional/error behavior when LINGO is absent, which an agent would need to know to handle failure.

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 takes zero parameters (schema is an empty object at 100% coverage), so there is nothing to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies per the rubric for 0-parameter tools.

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 specific verb ("Report") and resource ("detected LINGO 11 installation") and enumerates exactly what is reported: path, version, license expiry, solver memory. That is enough to tell it apart from lingo_solve, lingo_run_commands, and lingo_list_samples, which all act on models rather than on the installation itself. It stops just short of 5 because it never explicitly names those siblings as distinct.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., whether LINGO must already be detected), and no mention of alternatives. The only hint is the phrase "detected installation," which implies a diagnostic role but leaves the agent to infer it.

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