timps_tool_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states 'Show' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, permissions, or data freshness. It lacks details on whether the output reflects real-time status or cached data, which is a minor gap for a status 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?

The description is one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to the purpose. There is no redundancy or wasted space, achieving high clarity with minimal length.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns, and it does: it lists installed tools and their connection status. It does not describe output format or detail (e.g., whether it shows versions or connection details), but for a simple status tool, this is sufficient. The low complexity and zero parameters mean the description covers the essential aspects.

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 add parameter-specific semantics because none exist, and the schema is fully covered by the absence of fields. The description's mention of 'installed' and 'connected' clarifies the output dimensions but not parameter meaning, which is irrelevant here.

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 clear verb ('Show') plus a specific resource ('AI coding tools') and defines the scope (installed and connected to TIMPS Swarm MCP server). It is distinct from siblings like timps_full_checkup or timps_kernel_status, which focus on broader system status, whereas this tool specifically targets AI tool installation and connection state.

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 when to use it (to check AI coding tool installation/connection), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Given the large sibling list, there is no guidance on how this differs from status-related tools like timps_full_checkup or timps_kernel_status, making it only implied rather than explicit.

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