spamtitan_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show' implies a non-mutating read, but the description does not disclose whether the tool performs authentication, refreshes tokens, queries a live server, or has side effects. Failure modes and permission requirements are also absent.

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 sentence with no filler. Both key outputs, 'credentials status' and 'available domains', are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 empty schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only contextual source. It names the two outputs but does not define what credentials refer to, what the domain list represents, or how this tool fits into the workflow with siblings. It is minimally usable but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 empty schema already captures all parameter semantics. The description does not need to explain parameters. This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 uses the verb 'Show' with a clear resource: 'credentials status and available domains'. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like spamtitan_release_message or spamtitan_manage_allowlist, which clearly perform different actions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from spamtitan_get_stats, which could also be a status-like tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is a pre-flight credential check, whether it should be used before other SpamTitan operations, or when a user would need the domain list. No exclusions or alternative tool routing are provided.

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