get_vibe_proxy_status

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

The description is minimal and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, which it fails to meet.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward status check.

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 and an output schema), the description is nearly complete. However, it could benefit from a brief hint about what the status includes (e.g., 'returns connection state and latency'), but the output schema likely covers that.

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 no parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. According to the guidelines, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'Vibe CLI proxy status', which directly reflects the tool's name. However, it does not differentiate its purpose from sibling tools like 'query_vibe_proxy', leaving ambiguity about the distinction between checking status and querying.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without indicating prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or when another tool might be better.

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