status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already established. The description adds context by specifying what it returns (process state, uptime, version, queue depth) and noting that output is 'whatever the deployment reports,' which aligns with the openWorldHint. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral details beyond the structured data.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first states the action and resource, the second explains return values and provides usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with no parameters, a rich set of annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and an output schema present. The description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it over a sibling, making it complete for its simplicity.

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 and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description adds no parameter information (none needed) and the schema is already complete.

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 ('Read') and resource ('the Hermes agent's current run state'), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling tool `start`, saying to prefer this when you only need to know if the agent is already running. This distinguishes it clearly from at least one sibling and provides a specific scope.

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 explicit guidance: 'Prefer this over `start` when you only need to know if the agent is already running.' This states a clear condition for using this tool over a specific alternative, which satisfies the 'explicit when/alternatives' criterion.

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