get_system_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but does not. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, what data it returns, whether it triggers side effects, or any access requirements. The description is purely a label with zero behavioral detail.

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?

While the phrase is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not deliver any useful information beyond the tool name, so it fails to earn its place in the description.

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?

Despite the low complexity (0 params, no output schema), the description omits essential details about what system status is returned or how it can be interpreted. The many sibling tools suggest overlapping functionality, and this description does not clarify its specific role.

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 inherently covers everything. The baseline of 4 applies, and there are no parameter descriptions needed. The description adds no parameter information because there is nothing to add.

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 essentially a title that restates the tool name without specifying what 'status' includes. It does not clearly state the verb or the exact resource/scope, and it fails to distinguish this from siblings like get_platform_status or wm_status.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_platform_status or get_acm_score, nor does it mention any prerequisites or scenarios.

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