get_portal_statuses

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 states this is a read operation ('Returns the live status'), which implies no mutation, and it discloses the underlying API wrapper (NBAPI GetPortalStatuses). It does not explicitly say 'read-only' or describe side effects, but the nature of a status query makes the safety profile clear. A score of 4 reflects strong implicit disclosure, with room for an explicit read-only note.

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 sentences, no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the return fields are enumerated compactly, and the filtering guidance is efficient. Every clause earns its place.

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 compensates by listing all fields in each PORTALSTATUS block. It covers the five optional parameters, explains filtering, and points to the relevant vocabulary tools. For a read-only status query with no required parameters, this is complete; nothing an agent needs to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter already described. The description adds value by grouping the filters (portal, state, partition, location) and cross-referencing the vocabulary tools, which helps an agent understand how the parameters relate. It does not repeat parameter details but enhances their meaning by linking to context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the live status of portals (doors)', and immediately clarifies it is the current state, not configuration. It also lists the exact fields returned, making the output shape unambiguous. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_portals (configuration) and get_portal_states (vocabulary) without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

Explicitly states the filtering dimensions (portal, state, partition, location) and directs the agent to get_portal_states for STATEKEY vocabulary and get_locations for LOCATIONKEY values. This is clear 'when to use this tool vs alternatives' guidance, naming the exact sibling tools and the condition that selects them.

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