get_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose side effects. It uses the read-oriented verb 'gets' and specifies a status command, which implies a non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or potential error conditions. This leaves some ambiguity but not contradictory information.

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, information-dense sentence that states the purpose and the exact command. Every word is useful and there is no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description adequately explains what the tool does and how it works. It could mention prerequisites like OCC availability, but that is not critical for this simple status check. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 schema coverage is trivially high. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable. Per the guidelines, zero parameters earn a baseline score of 4.

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 'Gets the Nextcloud system status' and specifies the exact command 'OCC status --output=json'. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trusted_domains or the generic run_occ.

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 the usage (checking system status) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or comparison with the generic run_occ tool, so it relies on inference.

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