perseus_status

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only and non-destructive by reporting health info. It lacks details on response format or any side effects, but the listed specifics are sufficient.

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?

Single sentence with front-loaded purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates what the tool does and its zero-arg nature.

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-arg tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and lists key information. Could mention return format (e.g., 'returns a JSON object'), but overall adequate.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage. The description explicitly confirms 'Zero-argument', adding value beyond the schema.

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 specific verbs ('Report') and lists exact resources (memories stored, encryption, database location, reflect availability). It clearly distinguishes from siblings (forget, recall, reflect, remember) by focusing on health/status.

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 implies this tool is for checking health/status, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide exclusions. The zero-argument note helps clarify simplicity.

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