tuning_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only status check via 'state' and the `initial.sh status` command, and it lists what is included, but it does not state permissions, auth needs, side effects, or whether anything is modified.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or wasted wording. Every element, including the source command and the list of reported aspects, contributes to selecting and understanding the tool.

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 status tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description lists the main returned areas and mentions rollback backups. However, it omits usage guidance and explicit safety/behavioral context, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent choosing among siblings.

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% for the single target parameter, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

States a specific resource (kernel/network tuning state) and lists the reported aspects (profile, BBR/fq, conntrack, NOFILE, swap, journald, rollback backups). It clearly distinguishes a state-reading tool from a mutation tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tuning_apply.

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?

Provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not name alternatives. The sibling tuning_apply exists, but the description gives no condition for choosing status over apply.

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