trmnl_status

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: results do not expose secrets, and local credential presence is not proof of account authentication. These are meaningful limitations that an agent needs before deciding whether this is the right status check.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and free of repetition. The first states what is inspected and the secrecy constraint; the second states the authentication limitation and the alternative next step.

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 no-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough context: what it inspects, what it deliberately does not expose, and what it does not prove. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly avoids unnecessary parameter discussion.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Inspect,' and names the exact resources: configured profile names, local credential presence, and supported features. It also distinguishes the tool from authentication verification by stating it does not prove account authentication.

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?

It gives a clear exclusion: this tool does not prove account authentication, and it points the agent to 'list devices after sign-in' for that purpose. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling, trmnl_auth_status, or state the primary diagnostic use case as directly as it could.

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