Fl Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the tool returns status and setup hints, and that reconnect forces a re-probe. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if there are side effects beyond the reconnect action, leaving some ambiguity.

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 main purpose and then adds the parameter detail. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or extraneous 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?

The description outlines the key components of the returned status (port, controller, scripts, FL running) and mentions setup hints, giving a reasonable mental model of the output. However, it does not describe the exact format or structure of the output, and since an output schema exists but is not shown, the description alone is slightly incomplete but adequate for the low complexity.

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 schema has no descriptions for parameters, so coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining the sole parameter 'reconnect' and its effect (forces a re-probe). This covers the parameter adequately, though it does not elaborate on the default behavior when reconnect is false, which is implied.

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: reporting connection status involving port, controller, scripts, and FL running state. It also mentions setup hints, giving a precise scope of what the tool checks.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it is for checking connection status, it does not state scenarios such as 'use before other FL operations' or contrast with sibling tools. The only usage hint is about the reconnect parameter.

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