Check TSLink 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 the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond them by disclosing that a pending needs_login handoff carries auth_url even after the daemon stops — a non-obvious behavioral fact an agent would otherwise learn only by calling.

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, the report scope front-loaded and the usage trigger second. The final clause is dense (two conditions joined by a semicolon) but every phrase carries information; nothing is redundant padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description focuses on scope plus invocation timing. Combined with annotation-encoded safety, an agent has enough to call it correctly, with only the sibling-routing gap remaining.

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 takes zero parameters, so this dimension defaults to the baseline 4. The description correctly adds no parameter prose, and nothing about the empty object schema is left ambiguous.

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 ("Report") and enumerates the exact resources inspected: local daemon, stored credentials, node authorization, and service-count state. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema, though it never names or distinguishes itself from plausible siblings like doctor, health, or logs.

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?

Gives concrete triggers: "Use this before retrying a share or when diagnosing why a URL is not ready." That covers when-to-use well, but there is no when-not guidance and no explicit routing to alternative diagnostics such as doctor or health.

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