get_passwall_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get ... status'), implying no destructive effects. However, it does not disclose whether special permissions are required or any rate limits. Overall, it adequately communicates the tool's safe nature.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, listing key output fields. Every word is useful with no 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?

Given no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete. It highlights essential status fields, but could briefly note that the tool returns a structured object. Nonetheless, the output schema likely covers details.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying what the status response contains (running, proxy mode, DNS mode, node list), going beyond the empty schema to inform the agent about expected output.

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 retrieves Passwall/Passwall2 proxy status and lists specific data fields (running, proxy mode, DNS mode, node list). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_openclash_status (different proxy) and get_service_status (generic).

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?

Usage is implied for checking Passwall status, but no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_openclash_status or get_service_status. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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