mealie_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It honestly states the tool checks reachability and authentication, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, side effects (none expected), or detailed behavior, leaving room for more 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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a perfect score for efficiency.

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's simplicity (zero parameters, status check), the description adequately covers the essential purpose. An output schema exists, so return format documentation is not necessary. However, it could briefly note that it is a safe read-only operation, which would make it fully complete.

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 input schema is an empty object. Per the baseline rule, with 0 parameters, the description does not need to add parameter-specific details, and a baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the exact resources ('server reachability', 'authentication works'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like CRUD operations or recipe-specific tools, making it unambiguous.

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 purpose implies a diagnostic use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. It gives clear context for status checking, but stops short of full guidance.

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