get_status

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

The description states it 'Return[s]' data, indicating a read-only operation. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 is front-loaded with the action and lists the return fields. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output, with no unnecessary 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 the tool has no parameters and a simple function, the description adequately covers what it returns. However, it lacks details such as the format of the output or any limitations. Still, it is sufficient for a straightforward status retrieval 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. The schema coverage is 100% (by default), and the description adds value by listing the returned fields. For zero-parameter tools, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns account, deploy count, platform, and state directory. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('status'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'get_logs' or 'list_deploys', but given it's a status retrieval, the context implies it's a general overview tool.

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 is provided. The purpose is implied (e.g., when you need an overview), but there are no exclusions or mentions of when not to use it. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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