pac_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it confirms the tool performs no environment contact and covers local setup diagnostics. This is meaningful additional transparency for a triage tool.

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?

Three short, information-dense sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and a key behavioral constraint.

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 read-only diagnostic tool, the description is complete: it states what it checks, when to run it, and what it does not do. No output schema is needed to make the invocation behavior clear.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior and does not introduce any confusion.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource ('Check the setup') and enumerates exactly what is checked: config items, pac CLI version, and auth profiles. It also distinguishes the tool by noting it does not contact an environment, separating it from sibling tools like list_environments.

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 explicitly says 'Run this first when anything fails,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also implies when not to rely on it by stating it does not contact an environment, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios.

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