get_ftl_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only enumerates returned fields. It never states that the call is read-only and side-effect free, whether it requires authentication, or how frequently the values refresh (uptime/frequency could be live or cached).

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and then the payload. No filler, though the colon-separated field list reads more like a return-value note than a purpose statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still names the key ones. For a zero-parameter read tool this is largely sufficient; only the safety/behavioral side is missing because no annotations back it up.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing to disambiguate. The empty schema with additionalProperties=false matches the description's implicit no-argument contract.

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 identifies the resource: FTL process status, and enumerates the fields returned (PID, uptime, privacy level, client/gravity counts, query frequency). It is a noun phrase without an explicit verb, and it does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors like get_stats, get_system_info, or get_metrics, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this rather than get_stats, get_system_info, get_version, or get_metrics, all of which plausibly overlap. The agent must infer timing and alternatives entirely from the field list.

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