stocklens_status

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: it only reads existing call logs and cache (no new network calls, hence fast), works even without an active license, and is intended for lightweight status checks. This goes well beyond what the empty parameter schema reveals.

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 compact yet information-dense, with each sentence serving a purpose: summary of output, use case, network/cache behavior, license exemption, and pointer to deeper diagnostics. No filler or redundant wording.

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 the tool's simplicity (no params, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, when to use it, how it behaves, and what to do for more thorough investigation. It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema's properties object is empty, so schema coverage is effectively complete. The description doesn't need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate, as there is nothing to elaborate on.

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 summary: it reports version/license/market status/recent success-failure/cache writability at a glance. This clearly identifies the tool's resource and function, and it stands apart from sibling market-data tools, which focus on stocks, charts, and financials rather than system health.

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 explicitly says to use 'when lightly checking during conversation whether there's a problem,' and contrasts itself with deeper diagnosis by directing users to the stocklens-doctor terminal command. It also distinguishes its behavior from other tools by noting it bypasses the license gate, giving 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.