client_status

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

The description hints at underlying logic (process liveness, window state, update flag, joined state) but does so in a metaphorical and unclear manner. It fails to disclose the return value, side effects, or how the four checks are combined, leaving the behavior ambiguous.

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 long, meandering paragraph with unnecessary poetic language and filler (e.g., 'silently broken a run before'). It lacks a clear front-loaded summary and is not concise or well-structured.

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?

The tool appears to be a status check, but the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, a string, a verdict). It also does not cover error handling, when it might fail, or how the results relate to the mentioned checks. Given the minimal schema and output description, this is highly incomplete.

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 input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The description does not add any meaningful clarification about implicit inputs or configuration, but this is not a significant gap given the empty parameter list.

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 vaguely states 'everything about the client that decides whether the other tools can work' but does not clearly specify the tool's function, resource, or output. The 'four questions' are cryptic and not directly tied to a concrete action or result.

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 provided on when to use this tool compared to sibling status-check tools like 'client_verdict' or 'server_status'. The description does not mention any conditions or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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