get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response format looks like, whether it requires authentication, or latency/rate implications. For a system status tool this is a notable gap—the agent cannot anticipate the return payload structure.

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 efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Appropriate for a zero-parameter tool, though it could add useful behavioral details without bloating.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but somewhat adequate. However, since there is no output schema, the description should explain what 'overall status' returns (e.g., running state, error codes, uptime) so the agent can interpret the result. The absence of return-value detail and distinction from get_all are gaps.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the schema carries no burden and the description needs no parameter explanations. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description needs to do nothing here.

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 states 'Get overall PLC system status' with a specific verb (get) and resource (PLC system status). It is moderately clear, but vague—'overall status' doesn't specify what fields or aspects are included, making it hard to know exactly what will be returned. It does distinguish somewhat from siblings like read_sensor (sensor reading) and get_alarms (alarms), given the 'overall PLC system' scope, but not crisply.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_all, get_alarms, and read_sensor, there is ambiguity about whether get_status overlaps with or complements get_all. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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