get_system_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description implies a read-only health check but does not state that explicitly, nor does it mention whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The lack of clarity on behavior is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single sentence—short and to the point. It conveys the core purpose without fluff. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., adding a period at the end or front-loading the intent better).

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 zero parameters but an output schema exists, the description is adequate but not rich. It doesn't hint at the output shape or how to interpret the health status, leaving an agent to infer behavior from the output schema alone. For a simple health check with no inputs, the description is minimally viable but could be more helpful by explaining what 'health' entails.

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 has zero parameters, and the description provides complete clarity about the lack of inputs. There are no schema descriptions needed beyond what is already 100% covered by the parameter count. The description suffices for the input semantics.

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 purpose is to 'Check health of all NullSec components', specifying a concrete verb ('check') and resource ('health of all NullSec components'). It differentiates from siblings like 'diagnose_issue' which implies a narrower scope, and 'run_security_tool' which is more action-oriented. A slight deduction for not being more specific about what 'health' means (e.g., uptime, latency).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'diagnose_issue' or 'scan_target'. For example, it doesn't explain whether this is a quick status check vs. a deep diagnostic. There are no prerequisites, context for appropriate use cases, or exclusions mentioned.

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