list_tools_status

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns a dict with per-tool availability grouped by category, backend status, and execution mode, and indicates no arguments are needed. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the nature of a status report implies it.

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 verbose and repetitive, with the first sentence restating the USECASE and OUTPUT_DESCRIPTION duplicating the Returns section. While structured, it contains redundancy that could be trimmed.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, the description covers use case, instructions, input/output, example, prerequisites, and related tools. It fully specifies behavior and return value, so it's 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?

Tool has 0 parameters, so baseline is 4. Description explicitly states 'Call with no arguments' and INPUT_DESCRIPTION=None, fully clarifying parameter semantics.

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 'Report' and resource 'security tools' with scope 'on the host and via Kali/Docker'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that perform scans/recon, as this is a status/availability reporting tool.

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 USECASE field explicitly states 'See, per tool, whether it is installed on the host and whether the Kali container backend is available', providing clear context. It also lists RELATED_TOOLS=scope_manage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, so score 4.

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