sharkd_status

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only status, side effects, or rate limits. For a status tool, it likely has no side effects, but that is not stated. The description does not add value beyond the name.

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 very concise at 6 words, which is efficient. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no breakdown of usage or parameters). It is front-loaded but could benefit from additional context without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description could be minimal. However, it lacks essential context such as that it requires an active sharkd session, or that it returns current state. The description is too brief for a tool with two parameters and a mandatory session_id.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The session_id is implied but not described, and timeout is not explained (e.g., its purpose). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'sharkd status for a loaded capture', clearly indicating what the tool does. It somewhat distinguishes from sibling tools like 'capture_status' by specifying the sharkd context, but could be more explicit about the uniqueness.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as capture_status or other sharkd tools. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active sharkd session) or conditions for use.

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