OPA status

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it identifies the underlying document, the status-key presentation, startup-time contents, and redaction of service header values to protect API keys. That redaction note is especially valuable for an agent reasoning about sensitive output.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then adds sibling differentiation and behavioral detail. Every sentence provides distinct value, and there is no repetition of structured fields.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, how it differs from opa_config, when to choose it, and the redaction behavior, leaving no material ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for an input schema gap.

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 and resource: returns the running OPA server configuration via GET /v1/config. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling opa_config by explaining the status-key presentation and the 'what is running' framing.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: agents that want to check 'what is running' rather than 'what was the server configured with', and names the alternative opa_config for that second case. No inference is needed to route between the two tools.

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