get_wlm_status

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

The annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the missing explanation of why — a real console command is issued and the path is a "gated write", which tells the agent to expect approval/side-effect semantics. It stops short of saying whether approval is required (e.g. via approve_write) or what happens to the target system.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action, the resource, and the execution mechanism, with the side-effect caveat parenthetically attached. Nothing redundant.

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 3-param, no-required-argument tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The only gap is that with no output schema, the agent is not told that the result is raw console output text for the WLM display.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — every parameter (command, consoleName, environment) is documented with defaults and examples. The description adds only the default "D WLM" shape already present in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Display) and resource (Workload Manager state) plus the exact mechanism (MVS "D WLM" console command), so the agent knows precisely what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the generic issue_console_command sibling, which would be the natural alternative for this same request.

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 phrase "gated write: a console command is issued" hints at why this exists separately from raw console commands, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. issue_console_command for arbitrary commands). Usage must be inferred from the description of the operation.

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