hpc_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. It discloses that the tool is a read-only status check and reveals a key behavioral constraint: if unavailable, the tool cannot fix it. However, it does not explicitly state whether it is non-destructive or mention any side effects, but the nature of a status check makes these implicit.

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 three sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the key purpose in the first sentence, immediately followed by usage guidance and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not detailed), the description fully covers what the agent needs: what status means, when to call, and what to do with the result. It is complete for a health-check tool.

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, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meanings, and it doesn't repeat schema information. It correctly focuses on purpose and usage.

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 clearly states the tool checks authentication and connection status of the DTU control plane. It uses specific verbs ('Check whether') and identifies the resource ('DTU control plane'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other operations like job submission or auditing.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first in any session,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains what to do if the daemon is unavailable and notes the tool's limitation that it cannot start or authenticate the daemon, which helps agents decide when to escalate to the user.

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