comptext_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Return ... status' without indicating whether it is a read-only operation, if it fetches data, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that likely performs checks.

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, no wasted words, directly states what the tool returns. Appropriate length and structure for a simple status tool.

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 no parameters and existence of output schema, description lists components returned but lacks behavioral context (e.g., is it a local check, network-dependent?). Adequate but could be more complete by mentioning read-only nature or performance characteristics.

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 in schema (0 params), and schema coverage is 100% (empty). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and description adds nothing needed about parameters.

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?

Description clearly states it returns status of multiple components (CompText, Rust, Cargo, Git, workspace), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on contract checks, packing, audits, etc. However, it could be more specific about what 'status' entails (e.g., version info, health indicators).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. The description implies it's for checking status but provides no context on scenarios or exclusions.

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