status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose some behavioral traits by enumerating the data returned (cache size, configured keys, etc.), which suggests a read-only observation operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating, safe to call, or free of side effects, leaving some ambiguity for a tool without 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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the four key pieces of status information. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to parse. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no input parameters.

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 that there are no input parameters and an output schema exists (which likely details return structures), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the essential scope of the tool. The phrase 'specs tried so far' is slightly vague but does not undermine overall completeness for a status-checking 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 is an empty object with no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description doesn't need to explain parameter meanings, and there are none to clarify. The description's list of returned items adds context beyond the empty 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 clearly indicates the tool's purpose by listing the specific status information it exposes (cache size, configured keys, sources available, specs tried). It doesn't use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'show', but the noun-phrase structure is unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'resolve' and 'fetch' by focusing on status observation rather than actions.

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 the tool or how it compares to alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like 'check current cache state' or exclusion criteria. With siblings like 'discover' and 'events', the lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer appropriate timing.

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