encryption_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists what it reports (encryption active, key configured, library installed) but fails to disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, side effects, or whether it is read-only. It lacks sufficient transparency for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff. Perfect structure for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description covers the essential information: what it checks and that it's enterprise-only. It is marginally complete but could benefit from indicating the output format or potential errors.

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 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter information because there are none. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not detract.

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 'Check G-code encryption status and configuration', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'rotate_encryption_key' (which modifies) and 'license_status' (which checks license), making its purpose unique.

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 mentions it is an 'Enterprise feature', implying usage restrictions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rotate_encryption_key). No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, only the types of information reported.

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