fedbrain_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Show your... status'), but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, requires any permissions, or has performance implications. While adequate for a simple status check, more explicit safety guarantees would improve 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 extremely concise: one sentence lists the tool's function and bullet-point style items, followed by a single sentence on usage. Every part adds value, and the key action is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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 lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the return items (lessons contributed, recent confirmations, etc.), providing a good mental model of the output. It does not detail data format or caching behavior, but for a status tool with a single parameter, it is largely 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the single parameter 'instance_id' is already described as 'Brain instance ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 starts with a clear verb 'Show' and a specific resource 'FedBrain federation status'. It lists concrete items (lessons contributed, recent confirmations, etc.) that differentiate it from siblings like fedbrain_confirm and fedbrain_contribute, which perform actions rather than display status.

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 states 'Use to track your brain's global knowledge contribution,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools for specific actions imply when a more targeted tool might be needed.

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