Get Fleet Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotence are covered. The description adds the useful scoping fact that results are limited to endorsements by the current principal, but says nothing about what a 'status' value contains or whether results are cached/aggregated.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, scope qualifier placed where it is read. Nothing to trim and nothing structurally missing.

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 parameterless read with no output schema, the description should convey roughly what comes back. It says 'status of all agents' but never characterizes the status values or result shape, leaving the agent to discover the return semantics at call time. Annotations carry the rest, so this is a moderate rather than severe gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the principal is derived from context rather than passed in, which is the only semantic question a parameterless tool raises.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (fleet status) with a clear scope qualifier: 'all agents endorsed by the current principal'. That scope distinguishes it from generic listing siblings like list_agents, though it never names an alternative 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With ~150 siblings including list_agents, verify_endorsement, and get_promotion_history, the agent gets no help deciding when fleet status is the right call versus those adjacent reads.

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