status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is 'Read-only and never billed' and that 'Secrets are never returned,' which are important safety traits. It does not elaborate on caveats like rate limits, but the disclosed traits are strong for a status tool.

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 three sentences and every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second conveys safety and usage, and the third reassures about secrecy. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no redundant words.

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, an output schema is present, and the tool is simple (status report), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know. It states what the tool returns (workspace, plan, capabilities), when to use it, and that it is safe and read-only. The existence of the output schema eliminates the need to describe return formats.

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 the schema provides no parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter information because there is nothing to add.

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 opens with 'Report the authenticated Bilinc Cloud workspace, plan, and capabilities,' which uses a specific verb and clearly identifies the resource and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling lifecycle tools like commit_mem and forget, which perform mutations. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understood.

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 guidance: 'Use this to discover which lifecycle operations and recall profiles the current API key may use before attempting them.' This makes the intended use case clear. It does not explicitly exclude other uses or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to call this tool.

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