Check service status

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It accurately describes a read operation and specifies the output type ('traffic-light status'). However, it does not mention response format details or potential side effects, though none are expected for a status check.

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, 15 words. Front-loaded with the core action and resource. No extraneous information.

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 and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose. However, it does not explain what 'traffic-light status' means (red, yellow, green), which could be clarified. Context signals show no parameters, so completeness is adequate for a simple status 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?

No parameters exist (0 params, 100% schema coverage). The description correctly omits parameter details, aligning with the baseline score of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'traffic-light status of the attestation service' listing specific components (worker, archive, signer, Bitcoin anchor). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_anchor' which focus on a single component.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for overall service status, but does not provide when-not-to-use or contrast with siblings like 'check_anchor'.

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