status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool checks connectivity and reports application state, including errors and warnings, which implies a read-only diagnostic operation. It does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but the nature of 'check' and 'report' makes the lack of mutation clear. This is adequate for a simple status tool.

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 two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the tool's purpose and output details, the second provides critical usage guidance. It is front-loaded and free of 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?

For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple diagnostic role, the description is complete. It specifies what is checked, what is reported, and when to use it. Given the tool's simplicity, no additional context is 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, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. There is no need for the description to explain parameters, and the schema confirms no inputs are required. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inputs.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('REW API connection') and the scope of what is reported ('reachability, measurement count, and any logged errors or warnings'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which perform a status/diagnostic function.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Run this first if other tools fail.' This provides clear usage guidance and positions the tool as a first-line diagnostic. While it doesn't list when-not-to-use alternatives, the instruction is sufficiently specific for a unique status tool.

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