tqs_status

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, and the description adds specific behavioral context about what the tool checks and reports, such as the interpreter in use and folder paths. This goes beyond the annotation's bare safety signal, though it omits details like error handling or timeout behavior.

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 three sentences, each delivering distinct value: what the tool does, what it reports, and when to run it. It is front-loaded with the action and contains zero filler.

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 simple status-check tool with no parameters and read-only annotations, the description fully covers the purpose, specific outputs, and usage context. No additional information is necessary for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema provides complete coverage by default. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 checks whether the TQS Python Interface is reachable and lists specific information it reports (interpreter, modules, folders). This is a distinct diagnostic verb+resource that separates it from sibling tools like tqs_process or tqs_introspect.

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 to 'Run this first when TQS tools misbehave', giving clear contextual guidance for when to use the tool. It does not name alternatives or describe when not to use it, but the 'first' directive implies precedence over other tools.

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