arpe_get_status

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the command-builder vs binary mode and the lack of database requirements. Annotations already indicate it's read-only and idempotent, so the description complements them well.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that convey all necessary information without any redundancy or fluff.

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 has no parameters, has an output schema, and annotations cover safety, the description is complete. It explains the tool's scope (four tools), mode of operation, and lack of dependencies.

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?

There are no parameters, and the description explicitly states that no parameters are required, which is appropriate given the empty input schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so no additional parameter info is needed.

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 that the tool shows the status of four specific Arpe.io tools (FastBCP, FastTransfer, LakeXpress, MigratorXpress). It includes additional context about command-builder vs binary mode, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 explains that no database connectivity or parameters are needed, implying it can be used without prerequisites. While it does not explicitly compare with alternatives, the purpose is clear and sufficient for a simple status check.

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