legion_status

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

With no annotations present, the description does real work: 'Reads only' declares the absence of side effects, and it discloses a non-obvious trait — it runs on Stacks mainnet regardless of the server's NETWORK setting. The conditional field ('your own weight if a wallet is unlocked') hints at wallet-gated output, though failure modes and error behavior are not covered.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the one decision-relevant constraint and a short pointer. Three short blocks, no filler sentences, and the most important caveat (activation threshold) is not buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's field enumeration is essential and it delivers that. For a zero-required-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only minor gaps remain around what happens when no wallet is unlocked or when the era deployment is unavailable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `era` parameter is fully explained there, including the default and the proposal-id ambiguity. The description adds nothing about `era` beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (the News Legion) and enumerates exactly what the call surfaces: sBTC pool, total weight, membership/activated flag, governance params, current height, and the caller's own weight. The closing 'Start here' plus the contrast with proposal-related siblings (legion_propose_story) makes it clearly distinguishable from legion_get_story and legion_my_position.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent it is the entry point ('Start here') and states a concrete precondition to check ('membership.activated') before publishing a story, which routes the agent correctly relative to legion_propose_story. It also redirects to earning_opportunities for a different goal, but it never states when NOT to use this tool or how it overlaps with legion_my_position.

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