hookbase_get_tunnel_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks status and shows statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'live statistics' entails (e.g., metrics like latency or throughput). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, scoring a 2.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: two concise sentences that directly state the tool's function and output. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and 100% schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete but lacks output details (no output schema) and behavioral context. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't fully compensate for missing annotations or output schema, making it minimally adequate with clear gaps.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('The ID of the tunnel to check'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or where to obtain the tunnel ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate further.

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 purpose: 'Check the connection status of a tunnel' specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('tunnel'), and 'Shows whether the tunnel is connected and live statistics' elaborates on the output. It distinguishes from siblings like 'hookbase_list_tunnels' (which lists tunnels) and 'hookbase_get_destination' (which checks a different resource), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation, warranting a 4.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a tunnel ID from 'hookbase_list_tunnels'), exclusions (e.g., not for checking other resources), or compare to similar tools like 'hookbase_get_destination'. With no usage context provided, this scores a 2.

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