crbro_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. While "Get" suggests a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly confirm that it is non-destructive, require no special permissions, or describe any side effects. This lack of safety/behavioral context is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, tightly constructed sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and lists the key data elements efficiently, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides enough context by listing what the status includes. It does not cover error cases or expected output format, but for a straightforward status query, it is reasonably 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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description correctly reflects that by not mentioning any arguments. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation, and it adds no misleading parameter information.

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 the specific verb "Get" and clearly identifies the resource as the current status of the CRBRO brain. It enumerates the exact contents (total neurons, synapses, sessions, and brain path), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like crbro_learn or crbro_recall.

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 implies that this tool is for retrieving overall status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'use this for a quick overview' or 'for detailed neuron info, use crbro_neuron'. Usage is inferred from the name and description.

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