get_agent_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It notes the agent must be 'running', but fails to disclose other behaviors: what 'detailed status' includes (e.g., uptime, health), whether authentication is needed, or if the tool has side effects. Missing critical context for safe invocation.

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 sentence that is efficient and to the point. No wasted words, but could be slightly expanded to include key behavioral notes without losing 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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the large number of sibling tools, additional context (e.g., what 'status' entails, relation to list_running_agents) would improve usability.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'agentId' described as 'Agent to query'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 'Get detailed status of a running ACP agent' clearly states the action (get detailed status) and the resource (running ACP agent). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_running_agents (list all) and set_agent_status (modify), indicating a specific query for a single agent.

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 use when you need detailed status of a specific agent, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_running_agents for a summary, discover_agents for discovery). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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