rapid_status

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by indicating a read-only dashboard. However, it adds no extra behavioral details such as pagination, filtering, or data freshness beyond what annotations already convey.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the purpose efficiently without any waste.

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 simple read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's scope (all active/graduated/killed tests) but omits details about the output format or any filtering capabilities, which would be beneficial.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'market_name' with a clear description. The tool description does not add further meaning or usage context beyond what the schema offers.

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's purpose as a dashboard for viewing the status of rapid tests (active/graduated/killed). It uses specific verb 'dashboard' and resource 'Rapid Test Portfolio Status', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'rapid_test' and 'rapid_graduate'.

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 portfolio status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rapid_check' or 'status'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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