cl_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does: it states the tool reads the plugin list, pings LVE Manager, and changes nothing. That clearly conveys a read-only safety profile and the actual mechanism.

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 short sentences front-load the core purpose and then add only the essential mechanism and safety note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 detection tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it says what is checked, at a high level how, and that it is non-destructive. No critical calling context 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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema needs no elucidation. Per the zero-parameter baseline this is a solid 4; the description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 names a specific operation—detect CloudLinux/LVE Manager on this box—and explains the probe mechanism (plugin list + LVE Manager ping). 'Does not change anything' differentiates it from the mutating cl_* siblings such as cl_lve_set or cl_cagefs_enable.

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 purpose implies when to use it: when you need to check whether CloudLinux/LVE Manager is present or running. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so usage guidance is largely inferred rather than spelled out.

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