wacta_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Radiografía' suggests a non-invasive, read-only diagnostic, and the listed contents imply a query operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it performs no modifications, nor does it mention response format, caching, or permissions. For a low-risk status tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and then enumerates the specific data points included. Every element earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant information.

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 low complexity (zero parameters, no nested objects) and absence of an output schema, the description provides a solid overview of expected return values: core version, active add-ons, CTA count, and plan cap. It could be more explicit about the exact response format (e.g., JSON structure), but for a status diagnostic the listed fields suffice.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter detail to add. The rule sets a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, and the description appropriately focuses on what the response contains rather than parameters.

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 identifies the tool as an overview ('Radiografía') of the WaCta suite, listing specific contents: core version, active add-ons, CTA count, and plan cap. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wacta_get_settings (which likely retrieves config settings) and wacta_analytics_dashboard (which focuses on analytics metrics), though the verb is metaphorical rather than an explicit action like 'get' or 'list'.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for a high-level status check, but it does not mention exclusions or directly compare to siblings. For example, it doesn't clarify when to prefer wacta_wacta_status over wacta_analytics_ctas for CTA-related information.

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