hedgedoc_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It reveals that the tool returns JSON with specific metrics and hints at read-only nature via 'Get status', but it doesn't explicitly state that no modifications occur, mention authentication requirements, or describe potential errors. It adds some value by listing return fields, but not fully comprehensive.

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 and well-structured, with a one-line purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of key return fields. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 parameters, low complexity) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies the main return fields and indicates there are additional metrics, which is acceptable for a status endpoint. It doesn't need to explain return values in depth because an output schema exists.

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, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics (the schema shows an empty object). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but per rubric, 0 params baseline is 4, and no further compensation is 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the current status of the HedgeDoc instance.' It specifies the resource (instance) and the action (get status), and lists concrete return fields (note_count, online_users) that distinguish it from sibling tools like hedgedoc_read or hedgedoc_info, which focus on note content or specific note details.

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 implies usage for checking instance health/metrics but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hedgedoc_info. It doesn't mention exclusions or prerequisites, but the purpose is self-evident enough for simple status checks.

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