ovo_status

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

The description lists the kind of status data returned but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires any setup. With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, and it falls short by not confirming it is a safe, non-mutating status check.

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 a single sentence and front-loads the core concept 'OVOMIND bridge status'. It is efficient, though the dense jargon ('adapter mode', 'substrate descriptor', 'synthetic-phenomenology ethics assessment') could be clearer.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the returned status looks like. It lists the categories of information but does not provide format, units, or examples. This is acceptable for a status tool but lacks completeness for a fully self-contained description.

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, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description correctly does not add parameter-specific information since none exist.

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 reports OVOMIND bridge status, listing specific components (adapter mode, substrate descriptor, frame counters, ethics assessment). This distinguishes it from generic status tools like get_system_status or get_metrics, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for OVOMIND-specific status, but it does not mention when not to use it or compare to sibling tools such as ovo_read or tcai_self_model.

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