Inspect Allowlisted Whatbox Services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating it avoids reading configuration contents or process arguments, which is a security-relevant behavioral guarantee. 'Conservative' also signals a cautious reporting approach, adding transparency.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the action ('Report') and immediately conveys the resource and key constraints. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 status tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It clearly defines the tool's scope (allowlisted service catalog) and explicitly states what it avoids (reading configs/arguments), which is especially useful given the large family of sibling status tools. Return values are covered by the output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax, but it clarifies the resource scope (allowlisted services) and the behavioral constraints, which is sufficient given 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 a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('configured and running states for an allowlisted Whatbox service catalog'), and adds a distinguishing qualifier ('without reading configuration contents or process arguments') that separates it from configuration-focused siblings like whatbox_configuration_status. This fully clarifies what the tool does.

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 scope through 'allowlisted' and the no-read caveat, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like whatbox_torrent_clients_status or whatbox_storage_status. There is no 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance, so it falls short of being a clear usage guideline.

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