daysim_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that no subprocess runs except a best-effort version probe, and notes Daysim is built from source locally (never bundled). These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what a schema could express.

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?

Two sentences plus a return line. Purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative is stated in a compact conditional. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The output schema covers return fields, so description needn't repeat them. It adds essential context about environment variable usage, source-built nature, and the fallback to build_daysim. For a status tool, this is complete enough; error behavior is implied by the 'found' field.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 'Report Daysim availability' with specific executables (ds_shortterm + epw2wea) and the mechanism (HCL_DAYSIM_BIN or PATH). It distinguishes from siblings like build_daysim (which builds) and radiance_status (which reports a different tool).

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?

It explicitly mentions 'use build_daysim if missing', providing a conditional alternative. While it doesn't compare to radiance_status or other status tools, the context makes the intended use obvious. The alternative guidance is clear and actionable.

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