access_status

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows there is a side effect; the description goes further and explains exactly what that side effect is (starts the tunnel if down), its rate limit (at most once a minute), and its statefulness (first call of a run carries a banner to show the human once). The only missing piece is what happens on failure — whether an expired certificate or failed SSH test is reported versus raised — which matters for a pre-flight check.

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 critical instruction ('Call first in every session') is front-loaded in sentence two, and every clause carries real information: side effect, rate limit, recovery scope, banner. The nested parenthetical with wireproxy/recovery jargon is dense and slightly hard to parse, but it is not padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what the agent gets back so it can act on it — it mentions the one-time `banner` but not how tunnel/certificate/SSH results are presented or what a failing result looks like. Combined with the undocumented `probe` parameter, an agent can invoke this correctly but cannot fully interpret or configure it.

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?

There is one parameter, `probe` (boolean, default true), with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell whether setting probe=false suppresses the tunnel start, skips the SSH test, or disables the recovery side effect — a meaningful ambiguity given the tool's mutating behavior.

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 opening line names the three things checked (tunnel, certificate expiry, SSH test), which is specific enough that an agent knows this is the health/readiness probe rather than a job or file tool. It stops short of a clean verb+resource statement — the noun-phrase style ('Tunnel, certificate expiry and an SSH test') requires the reader to infer that this is a diagnostic status call — and it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like run_command or cluster_load.

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?

'Call first in every session' is an unusually direct when-to-use instruction, and the parenthetical explains the recovery side effect so the agent knows the call is safe to make proactively. It also carves out a scope exclusion (recovery does not yet apply to push_files/fetch_files). No explicit alternative tool is named for the case where the check fails, which keeps it below a 5.

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