actiond_status

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

Description states 'Safe to call at any time with no side effects', which aligns with the readOnly/idempotent annotations and adds practical context. It also details the return JSON fields, going beyond annotation-provided info. Minor redundancy with annotations, but still adds value.

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 compact sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. No unnecessary words, and every clause adds either purpose, output, or usage context.

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 an empty schema and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it relative to siblings. No missing information for invocation success.

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 schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and it correctly implies the tool takes no input.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'ActionD CI/CD server', along with the specific goal of capturing vitals. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming actiond_log and actiond_actions_list as alternatives for different purposes.

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 instructs to use this tool first when diagnosing connectivity, and directs to actiond_log for execution errors and actiond_actions_list for job history. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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