tapac_status

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

The description indicates the tool performs a read-only check of status, version, and API-key state. While this implies safe, non-destructive behavior, there are no annotations to confirm. The description does not elaborate on potential latency, network dependencies, or error states, which would improve transparency.

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, using a single sentence that effectively communicates the three aspects the tool checks: server status, version, and API-key state. There is no extraneous text, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly interpret its purpose.

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 and the sibling tool is clearly for contact lookup, the description is largely sufficient for a status-check tool. However, the description does not explain the format or structure of the output, which could be important for an agent to interpret results, even though an output schema exists separately.

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 schema has zero parameters and has 100% coverage. Since no parameters exist, there is no need for the description to add parameter-level details, and a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool checks TAPAC server status, version, and API-key state. It uses specific nouns and verbs to describe the function, differentiating it from sibling tools that likely interact with contacts rather than checking server 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?

The description implies usage for health-check or diagnostic purposes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tapac_find_contacts. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or conditions under which a status check is appropriate.

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