daemon_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 details that the tool aggregates GET /health and GET /api/v1/meta, and describes return values on success and failure (structured error dict). This is sufficient for a health-check tool. No contradictions with annotations.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the main function. It uses clear language and includes examples of return values. However, it could be slightly more concise by removing the code block formatting, though it remains efficient and informative.

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, no complexity), the description is complete. It states the purpose, usage context, return values, and error handling. With an output schema present, there is no need to detail return fields further. The description fully equips an agent to use the tool 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 input schema has zero parameters (no properties). The description explains the tool's behavior without needing to describe parameters. According to guidelines, 0 parameters defaults to a baseline of 4. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the tool does and returns.

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 function: 'Combined daemon health + metadata'. It specifies that it aggregates two endpoints and lists what information is returned (health status, metadata, version). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_url and list_captures, which handle capture operations. The purpose is specific and 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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Useful as a first call when an agent connects, to confirm the daemon is reachable and to learn what sources + capabilities are available.' This provides clear context for use. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use alternatives, the sibling tools' functions (capture-related) imply that this tool is for status checks, making the guidance effective.

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