kernel_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly labels the operation as a check and states the return type (status message). It does not mention side effects, but 'check' reasonably implies a read-only operation and the output schema covers further return details.

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 short sentences: the first states the action and target, the second states the return value. 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?

For a zero-parameter, output-schema-backed status check, the description is nearly complete. It could add an explicit note about being non-mutating or about prerequisites, but given the low complexity, the current definition is sufficient for reliable selection and invocation.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource ('kernel connection status'), and that purpose is plainly distinct from the sibling tools, which connect, execute code, or interrupt rather than report status.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this versus the sibling tools or whether a kernel must exist first. The agent can infer usage from the name, but the description itself offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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