sovereign_node_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool inspects and reports metrics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or whether it requires any prerequisites. It doesn't contradict anything but adds only limited behavioral context beyond the action verb.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, covering the key aspects of health, indexing stats, and operational metrics with no fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it reports. While it could mention return format or typical use cases, the simplicity of the tool means the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, which is fully documented by the empty schema. The description adds value by clarifying the tool's purpose, which compensates for the lack of parameter details. Since there are no parameters to explain, 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 inspects health, indexing stats, and operational metrics of the node, specifying the resource and purpose. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on node status rather than scanning, searching, or optimizing, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 it's for checking node health/status, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it over siblings like sovereign_inspect_archive. No exclusions or conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and the sibling list.

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