get_api_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns diagnostic data and appears read-only, but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or any required permissions. However, the description implies safe usage ('call this FIRST') and lists fix steps, suggesting no side effects. A higher score would require an explicit statement about mutability.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It front-loads the key instruction and then lists returns and workflow. Slightly verbose in listing all return items but remains clear and structured.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (API reachability, JWT, user ID, brain instances with status indicators, Redis ping, fix steps). It also provides the workflow. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, this is complete and leaves no major gaps.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the return content in detail, but since parameters are absent, the baseline is 4. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 is a full diagnostic for the 'cachly Brain' and should be called first for troubleshooting. It lists specific return items (API reachability, JWT validity, user ID, brain instances, Redis ping, fix steps), making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle cache, learning, or instance management.

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 says 'call this FIRST whenever anything is not working' and provides a clear workflow: run, read issue, fix, retry. This gives strong guidance on when to use the tool and how to incorporate it into a troubleshooting process.

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