Inspect Scrapyard service status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=false (does not depend on external world state). The description adds concrete behavioral context by listing what the tool returns (version, breaker state, registry, counters) and clarifies it is operational status, not a liveness probe. It does not dig into error conditions or rate limits, but given the read-only nature is already covered, a 4 is appropriate.

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 just two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the return payload; the second gives usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff. The structure is excellent.

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 simple status tool with no parameters and an output schema already provided, the description covers all necessary context: what is returned, when to use it, and how it differs from siblings. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke it is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to explain about input. The description instead focuses on output, which is appropriate. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add anything about parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and the exact resources: version, search-engine breaker state, adapter registry, and cache counters. It also explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools by stating 'not a web search and not merely a liveness probe', which leaves no ambiguity about its role.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios ('when search/research fails, results unexpectedly come from a fallback adapter, or you need to verify which engines are configured and healthy') and also what it is not for ('not a web search and not merely a liveness probe'). This gives an agent clear routing guidance relative to the sibling search/research tools.

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