ruvltra_status

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

no annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only status retrieval but does not state that it is non-mutating, nor does it mention any potential side effects, response latency, or auth requirements. Minimal additional behavioral context is given.

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 one short sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and clearly names all three status categories, making it efficient and easily scannable.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. The only gap is the lack of explicit usage context relative to sibling tools such as 'ruvltra_sona_stats', which could have created a minor ambiguity, but the core behavior is fully conveyed.

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 description is not required to explain parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies, and the description does not introduce confusion.

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 action 'Return' and the resource 'server, worker, and backend runtime status', which distinguishes it from the code-focused sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with 'ruvltra_sona_stats', another stats-like sibling, so differentiation is mostly 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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