diana_community_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'performs no network access' largely restates structured data. The description does add non-obvious context beyond annotations: that the community cache is optional (so absence is a legitimate state) and that trust levels are part of the reported status. It does not say anything about cost, side effects on local entries, or how 'trust levels' are determined.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with the operational reassurance about network access placed last. Minor redundant phrasing ('exact Git commit and trust levels') but nothing extraneous overall.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema, the description covers what is being reported and the no-network safety property. The only meaningful gap is the lack of explicit routing to the sibling tools that act on the reported state (prepare/sync/contribute).

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; however, there is nothing parameter-related for the description to clarify, and the score is held at 3 purely because there is no added semantic value to give in this dimension.

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 a specific verb ('Show') on a clearly named resource (the optional public community knowledge cache) and enumerates what is reported: sync state, Git commit, trust levels, and low-risk local entries. It is distinguishable from siblings like diana_community_sync or diana_community_contribute by being purely informational, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 phrase 'could be prepared for review' implies a natural workflow into diana_community_prepare, and 'optional ... cache' hints the tool is safe to call as a pre-check. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus diana_community_preview, diana_community_sync, or diana_status, leaving usage to inference.

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