abnormal_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only says 'show', which suggests a read-only operation but doesn't explicitly disclose safety (e.g., no side effects, no data mutation). It also doesn't mention whether authentication is required, any rate limits, or the response format. For a status tool, it would be helpful to state it's non-destructive and safe to call.

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, clear sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose. It could potentially be improved by adding a bit more context, but as is, it is concise.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a status tool, the description is too thin. An agent benefits from knowing what 'connection status' includes (e.g., API, auth), what 'available domains' means, and whether this should be called first. The description is adequate for a trivial tool but leaves gaps for a status check.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline is 4 for 0 params, which fits. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed.

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 states a clear purpose: it shows connection status and available domains. It is a specific resource (connection status) and result (domains), but it doesn't distinguish it from siblings like abnormal_cases_get or abnormal_threats_list, which are also about showing information. The verb 'show' is explicit, but the description is generic compared to the granular siblings.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, no conditions like 'use this when checking connectivity before other operations', and no mention of alternative tools. The description implies it's a general status check, but it doesn't state when that is preferred over other operations.

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