contrastapi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but reveals nothing about side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes a healthy vs. unhealthy status. It does not describe the return value format or error conditions.

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?

While only two words long, this represents under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The single 'sentence' conveys no actionable information and fails to earn its place in helping an agent understand or select the tool.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns (status codes, health indicators, latency metrics) but provides no such information. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description is completely inadequate.

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 accepts zero parameters and the input schema correctly reflects this empty state. With no parameters to document, the baseline score applies as there is no additional semantic meaning required beyond the empty schema.

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 'Api Status' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with different casing. It fails to specify what 'status' means (health check, operational state, uptime) or what API is being referenced, and does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'api_usage'.

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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'api_usage', 'check_dependencies', or 'check_headers'. No prerequisites, triggering conditions, or exclusions are mentioned.

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