rtc_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only status operation rather than a mutation, and it surfaces a key behavioral dependency: the database version is part of the result trail, so the tool must be called before delivery. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but those are minor for a zero-parameter status check.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states what the tool reports, the second gives the invocation rule and rationale. Every word earns its place and the main idea is 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?

For a zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description tells an agent exactly what information it will receive (calculator, mode, app and DB versions) and when to call it. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter details because none exist or 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 names a specific resource (server status) and the concrete information it exposes: which calculator is active, local vs public mode, and application/RFB database versions. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling calculation/validation tools, none of which are status or metadata tools.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: call before any delivery ('Chame antes de qualquer entrega') and explains why — the database version is part of the result trail. For a parameterless status tool with no relevant alternatives among siblings, this is sufficient guidance.

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