query_uaio_status

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required scope (infrastructure:scan:read), mentions governance by Arbiter policy, and notes that every call is sealed with a ProofLink receipt. For a read-only status check, this provides adequate behavioral context beyond a simple 'get status'.

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, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the purpose, then lists key metrics and requirements, with no redundant or filler sentences.

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?

For a simple, parameter-less tool, the description is reasonably complete. It enumerates the returned metrics (container health, compliance scores, etc.) and mentions governance. Without an output schema, the description compensates adequately. Could be enhanced by noting the response format or potential errors, but sufficient for most use cases.

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 (schema coverage 100% empty), so the description need not add parametric meaning. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate; no further elaboration required.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves the operational status of the iTechSmart UAIO platform and lists specific metrics returned (container health, ProofLink receipts, etc.). Verb and resource are specific, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other systems or incident details.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_platform_briefing or mesh_health. The description only states the required scope, but does not provide context for appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.

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