get_operator_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies this is a read operation (snapshot) but does not mention whether it requires special permissions, is safe to call repeatedly, or what side effects exist. The description lacks depth on behavior beyond being a read.

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 very concise: one sentence and a fragment. It front-loads the core purpose. However, the fragment 'Read via run402 doctor' is cryptic and may confuse rather than help. Overall, it is succinct but could be clearer.

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 no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the output by listing components. However, it does not specify the structure or format of the snapshot, and the mention of 'run402' is unexplained. For a tool with zero parameters and no output schema, this is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description correctly indicates no inputs are needed. There is no additional parameter meaning to add, so the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 it provides a 'compact operator-health snapshot' and lists the included components (contact assurance, critical items, etc.). The verb is implied by the tool name 'get'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'service_health' or 'status', which may overlap in functionality.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Read via run402 doctor' hints at a usage context but is cryptic and not actionable for an AI agent. Missing information on prerequisites or limitations.

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