hac_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add one useful behavioral fact: the check covers both connection status and authentication. However, it says nothing about what happens on failure, whether any credentials/permissions are required, or whether the call has side effects, which leaves real gaps for a connection-level probe.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the precise object of the check. Nothing is wasted and there is no 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?

With an output schema present the return payload need not be described, and the zero-parameter schema needs no elaboration. Only the missing usage context (when to call this versus the other hac_* diagnostics) keeps it from being fully complete.

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 by rule the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly avoids inventing inputs.

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?

States a specific verb (checks) and resource (status and authentication of the configured HAC connection), which is enough for an agent to know it is a diagnostic/readiness probe rather than a mutation. It does not name or contrast with the nearest siblings such as hac_self_diagnose or hac_solr_status, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 when-to-use guidance, no precondition (e.g. run after hac_configure), and no mention of alternatives despite several overlapping diagnostic tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer the context entirely from the name.

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