reins_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read with no side effects, lowering the bar. The description adds genuine value by naming the returned state fields (stopped?, running lease, pending confirmations), but it leaves 'the robot's status fields' vague and says nothing about freshness or polling behavior.

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?

A single compact sentence, with the primary subject ('Reins state') front-loaded and the detail in a parenthetical. Nothing is padded, though the phrasing 'and the robot's status fields' is loose.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source of information about what comes back, and it gives only a partial sketch: three reins fields are named but 'the robot's status fields' is left undefined. For a zero-parameter status tool this is adequate but not 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies. No parameter text is needed or missing.

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 identifies the resource (Reins state plus the robot's status fields) and enumerates the key contents (stopped?, running lease, pending confirmations), which distinguishes it from siblings like reins_stop and reins_renew. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'get', but the read intent is unambiguous given the name and the enumerated fields.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, and none of the siblings (reins_stop, reins_policy, reins_renew, drive, set_led) are referenced. Usage is only implied by the name and the returned fields.

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