system_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Fast' hints at low cost and the enumerated items imply a read-only aggregate, but nothing states whether the call is side-effect free, requires authentication, is cached/rate-limited, or how expensive it is.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. The tradeoff is that packing four nouns into a fragment costs readability, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero annotations, an undocumented parameter, and overlapping siblings, an agent lacks what it needs to decide when this tool is the right first call — the description stops at naming the outputs.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single engagement_id parameter, which defaults to 'default', so the description must compensate. 'Active engagement scope' is the only hint that engagement_id controls which tenant's scope is reported, and it does not explain the default value's meaning or accepted identifier format.

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 enumerates what the tool reports — core health, worker readiness, engagement scope, capability summary — but is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer it is a read-only status report. It also overlaps thematically with sibling tools like job_status, capabilities_search, and capabilities_describe without saying how it differs from them.

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 statement of when to call this versus job_status for job health, capabilities_search for capability detail, or engagement_manage for scope. The adjective 'Fast' weakly implies a cheap first-line check, but no condition, exclusion, or alternative is named.

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