saihm_status

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

The description implies a read-only operation by saying 'Show', but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no authentication, or respects rate limits. Since annotations are absent, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is efficient, though the acronyms could be expanded for clarity.

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 output schema or annotations, the description carries the burden. It lists status components but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or whether a session must exist. This is adequate but not complete.

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 has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by listing the components of the status output, which provides 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 uses the verb 'Show' and specifies what is shown (PRS, BFSI, storage by tier, sharing, PHI), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like saihm_forget or saihm_share which perform actions. However, the acronyms may be ambiguous without domain knowledge, preventing a score of 5.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when to check status versus using saihm_share or saihm_forget. This is a significant gap.

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