resource_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool shows capacity and reservations and explicitly disclaims prediction, which is useful. However, it omits details such as whether the data is live or cached, whether any permissions are required, or any side effects. For a read-only status tool, this level of disclosure is adequate but not rich; a 3 reflects the absence of annotations without being overly punitive.

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 sentence that leads with the primary action ('Show configured capacity and current reservations') and then appends a clarifying limitation ('no resource prediction is performed'). It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no filler. Every word adds value.

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 simple tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (capacity and reservations) and what it does not (prediction). An agent can correctly invoke the tool without further information, as there are no required arguments and the purpose is fully described. The output schema covers return details, so the description need not elaborate.

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, so per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, the score is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly implies that no arguments are needed to invoke the tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource ('configured capacity and current reservations'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from all siblings, which are task/graph/artifact/event oriented, by focusing on resource-level status. The purpose is precise and immediately identifiable.

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 gives clear context that this tool reports resource capacity and reservations, and explicitly states what it does not do ('no resource prediction'). While it doesn't name alternative tools, the sibling set contains no resource-related tools, so the usage context is implicitly clear. The negative constraint 'no resource prediction' provides a boundary for when not to use it, meeting the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.

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