agent_mesh_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature by saying 'shows whether', which implies a safe status query. However, it doesn't describe output format (e.g., boolean vs. object) or any network dependencies. The definition of agent mesh is partially helpful but truncated, leaving some behavioral context missing.

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 a single sentence and extremely concise. It front-loads the key action and includes a helpful definition of agent mesh. No wasted words, and the structure is appropriate for a simple status 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?

For a zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description mostly suffices, but it is truncated mid-sentence ('whose AI agents...'), which leaves the definition incomplete. It also doesn't state what the return value looks like. Given the full description isn't provided, the tool isn't fully self-contained.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds context by specifying 'THIS machine', clarifying that the status check is scoped to the local machine rather than any other machine. This is useful semantic context beyond the empty schema.

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 tool's purpose: it shows whether the current machine belongs to an agent mesh. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_mesh_create, agent_mesh_join, and agent_mesh_revoke, which modify membership rather than check status. The specific verb 'shows whether' plus the resource 'agent mesh' leaves no ambiguity.

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 implies usage: use this tool to check if the current machine is part of an agent mesh. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools (e.g., you wouldn't use agent_mesh_create just to check status). No exclusions are stated, but the intended use is obvious.

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