lgh_status

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

The description is transparent about the tool's behavior: it 'reads only local state,' implying no side effects, and explains how the ActionD PID is obtained ('probed via its PID file'). It also discloses the output format (pretty-printed JSON), giving the agent a clear expectation of the result.

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 concise yet comprehensive, using three well-structured sentences. It front-loads the purpose, lists the aggregated data, and provides usage and output details without redundancy or unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's role in the ecosystem: it defines the health snapshot, explains the source of data (local state, PID file), specifies the return format, and explicitly contrasts with lgh_log for historical context. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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, and the description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments.' This eliminates any ambiguity about parameter usage, exceeding the baseline for parameterless tools by confirming there is nothing to pass.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a unified health snapshot of the LGH server and the ActionD daemon.' It enumerates the specific data points aggregated (running state, PID, listen address, etc.) and distinguishes it from the sibling tool lgh_log, making its role unambiguous.

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 clearly tells the agent when and how to use the tool: 'Takes no arguments' and 'safe to call at any time.' It also provides explicit selection guidance by contrasting with lgh_log for historical events, ensuring the agent chooses the correct tool for the situation.

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