get_fleet_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal a key behavior: the scope is limited to agents 'endorsed by the current principal,' which is useful context. However, it does not describe the output format, whether the status is real-time or cached, or any other behavioral traits. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get status' but not explicitly stated.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and the resource. There is no wasted language or redundant information. It is concise and immediately understandable.

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 getter with no parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, since there is no output schema, it would be helpful to describe what the 'status' includes (e.g., online/offline, current task, last seen). The description is brief and leaves some ambiguity about the return value, though the tool's purpose is clear.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 parameters results in a baseline score of 4. The description correctly includes the scope ('endorsed by the current principal') which adds context beyond what the empty schema provides.

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 function: 'Get status of all agents endorsed by the current principal.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and specifies the resource ('status of all agents'), with the scoping detail 'endorsed by the current principal.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_profiles or list_agents, which focus on listing entities rather than their status.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, such as list_profiles or get_task_detail. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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