get_system_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only names the resource. It does not state whether the call is read-only, what kinds of status data are returned, whether any side effects occur, or whether authentication or system state dependencies exist.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It contains no predicate, no operational detail, and no information that would help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although the zero-parameter schema keeps the call simple, the absence of an output schema, annotations, and behavioral context leaves an agent uncertain about the return format and the distinction from overlapping system-status tools. The single phrase does not provide a complete picture.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description does not add anything, but no parameter explanation is 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 'ASTRA System Status' is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name 'get_system_status' with the product prefix, rather than stating a specific action and resource. It does not differentiate the tool from the sibling 'get_platform_status', which appears to overlap in purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as get_platform_status, get_metrics, or get_snn_state. There is no context about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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