OPA status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing what the response includes (bundle, decision-log, plugin config at startup) and that it returns the same document as opa_config but under a different key. This goes beyond annotations but doesn't cover all behavioral aspects like error responses or latency.

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?

Three sentences, each adding essential information: action, differentiation from sibling, and content of response. Front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words.

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 read-only status tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and how it differs from a similar sibling. The content details (bundle, decision-log, plugin config) provide sufficient context for an agent to understand the return value.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information. It correctly states the tool requires no input.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns OPA server configuration via GET /v1/config and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool opa_config by explaining the difference in presentation (under 'status' key, convenience for checking running status vs configured).

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?

Provides explicit guidance by contrasting with opa_config: use this tool when you want to check 'what is running' rather than 'what was the server configured with'. Also describes the contents of the response (bundle, decision-log, plugin config at startup), giving clear context for when to use it.

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