get_user_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful detail about returned fields and the empty-user_id behavior, but does not disclose potential permission requirements or error behavior for nonexistent users.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds information, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup with one optional parameter, the description covers the parameter behavior, return shape, and possible status values. It does not discuss permission requirements or error handling, but the output schema and annotations cover much of the remaining context.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that user_id is the user to look up and that an empty value returns the caller's own status. This adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare string type and default.

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 states a specific action ('Get the status of a Nextcloud user') and enumerates the exact returned fields: online status, custom status message, status icon, and clear time. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_user_status, clear_user_status, and get_user.

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?

The usage context is implied by the verb and resource, and 'Leave empty to get your own status' gives one concrete usage rule. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over get_user or get_current_user, so the routing guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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