get_system_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints at a read-only operation but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, auth requirements, or rate limits. The description is somewhat transparent but could be more explicit about safety.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and key output components without unnecessary words.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality. It lists specific health components, providing sufficient context for a simple diagnostic tool. Missing details like return format or depth of per-source info, but acceptable for such a 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (no parameters). The description adds value by specifying that the output includes database connectivity, pipeline queue depth, and per-source crawl health. This compensates for the lack of parameters.

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 retrieves system health status and enumerates specific components (database connectivity, pipeline queue depth, per-source crawl health). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on bonds, entities, filings, etc.

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 usage for checking system status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, such as when troubleshooting or monitoring. No exclusions or context for when not to use.

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