obs_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the operation ('List') and the resource, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication or prerequisites are required, or any potential side effects. Since 'List' strongly implies a non-mutating query, this is not misleading, but the description adds no behavioral depth beyond the bare action.

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, well-formed sentence: 'List configured observability sessions.' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no extraneous words, and earns its place entirely. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the tool's function. The phrase 'configured observability sessions' implies that sessions are set up elsewhere (e.g., via obs_connect), giving context about the tool's role in the session lifecycle. However, it does not explicitly note that this is a read-only status check, which would be a minor completeness gap given the absence of annotations.

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 schema is an empty object. There are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 because the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. The description correctly matches the schema's simplicity.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('configured observability sessions'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings: obs_connect/obs_disconnect handle connection lifecycle, obs_query_* and obs_error_rate handle data retrieval, obs_grafana_* handle Grafana resources, and obs_annotate handles annotations. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that this should be used to check which sessions are configured before connecting, nor does it exclude any alternatives. There are no prerequisites, no explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' statements. The usage context is entirely left to inference from the name and purpose description.

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