League client status

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool reports (subsystem health, event tap state, config) but does not explicitly state whether it has side effects or is read-only. Given the 'status' nature, it's implied to be non-mutating, but this is not stated outright, leaving some ambiguity.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core function (what health is reported), and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is efficient and clear.

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 status/diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is reported (LCU, CDP, event tap, config) and when to use it (first when other tools fail). It omits the exact return format, but that is not explicitly required since there is no output schema. It is sufficiently complete 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, so the description need not elaborate on parameter usage. Per the rubric, a tool with no parameters gets a baseline of 4 regardless of schema coverage. The description does not need to add any parameter-related information.

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 that the tool reports the health of both LCU and CDP subsystems, event tap state, and effective config. It identifies distinct resources and a clear purpose (health check) that distinguishes it from sibling action-oriented tools like lol_get or lol_eval. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'check', making the action implicit rather than direct.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first when another tool fails', providing a precise condition for when to use it. This gives clear contextual guidance and implies it is a diagnostic first step, effectively routing the agent away from alternatives in failure scenarios.

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