seat_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only 'dump' operation and enumerates the output fields, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects. The phrase 'Seats record capacity failures here' could be misread as a write operation, though the verb 'dump' clarifies the tool's read-only 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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds relevant behavioral context, and the final parenthetical historical note is brief and does not obfuscate. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple, parameterless dump tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, what the statuses and reasons mean, and how the data relates to council_start behavior. It also notes the rename for continuity. No additional context seems necessary.

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 coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds value by describing what the returned dump contains, providing semantic context that the schema cannot. This meets the baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool.

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's function with a specific verb ('Dump') and a well-defined resource: the seat/model availability cache. It enumerates the exact data returned (per-model status, classified reason, last error, cooldown expiry), making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actions or list seats.

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 clear context for when this tool is relevant by explaining that seats record capacity failures here and that council_start skips models in cooldown. This implies usage for debugging availability before council operations, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or directly contrast with alternatives like list_seats.

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