prophetkey_proxy_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It reveals the tool is read-only and shows the output categories, but it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur or how it behaves if the proxy is not running. Some behavior is implied by 'status' but not fully specified.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the operation and its key output fields without wasted words. It is easy to scan and contains no redundant filler.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter status tool, the description gives enough context to decide to invoke it and know the general shape of the result. The phrase 'request stats' is somewhat vague and no output schema exists, but the operation is simple enough that the missing detail is not critical.

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 accepts zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. This matches the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the current status of the ProphetKey local proxy') and enumerates the included information (running, port, keys count, request stats). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'prophetkey_health_check', so it is clear but not fully distinguished.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as prophetkey_health_check or prophetkey_make_request. The description only says what it does, not which situations favor it or when to prefer a sibling.

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