fedbrain_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or data freshness. The description only lists what is shown but omits whether it is read-only, if it requires any prerequisites, or how recent the data is. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence with a bullet-like list, making it concise and front-loaded. It conveys the main action and specific details without extraneous words. Slight improvement could be made with clearer structure.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose but does not describe the response format or behavior. Since no output schema exists, the agent would benefit from knowing what to expect in the output.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the sole parameter 'instance_id' ('Brain instance ID'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 purpose: showing FedBrain federation status including specific items like lessons contributed, recent confirmations, Gold Standard lessons, and pending propagations. The verb 'Show' is precise, and the listed aspects differentiate it from sibling tools like fedbrain_contribute or fedbrain_confirm.

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 says 'Use to track your brain's global knowledge contribution,' providing clear usage context. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the context among siblings (e.g., fedbrain_contribute, fedbrain_confirm) implies this is for viewing, not performing actions.

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