get_guardian_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool reports current status and lists active agents, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm that it has no side effects or describe any limitations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives usage triggers and output details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 status tool, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool does and what output to expect. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly noting that it does not start or stop VibeGuard, but this is a minor gap given the sibling names make that distinction inferable.

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 no parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The description still adds useful context by indicating the output scope: active agents.

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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving the current status of VibeGuard and listing active agents. This distinguishes it from siblings like start_guardian, stop_guardian, and get_guardian_alerts.

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 description gives explicit user-intent triggers ('vibeguard status', 'what is running', 'agent health') for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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