system_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. It discloses a key behavioral trait—that it does not call a provider—which indicates it is local and likely non-blocking. However, it does not specify side effects (e.g., whether it checks resource usage, connectivity, etc.) or any other behavioral details beyond the basic request.

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, streamlined sentence that conveys the essential purpose in a few words. Every word earns its place, and there is 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?

This is a simple zero-parameter health check tool with an output schema present. The description, combined with the output schema, provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns. No additional details are necessary for this complexity level.

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, and schema coverage is trivially 100% (no properties). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. It adds no parameter info, which is fine here.

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 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'local health', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like council_run and memory_manage. The phrase 'without calling a provider' adds scope and context, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool ('when you want local health without calling a provider') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide comparisons to sibling tools. It gives a clear context clue but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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