get_horizon_status

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

The description adds concrete behavioral context by enumerating the returned data (supervisor states, paused status, failed jobs per minute), making clear it is a read-only snapshot. With no annotations, it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or auth requirements, but the 'Get' verb implies a safe read operation. It covers the key behavior beyond the tool name.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately names the action and resource, then lists the relevant data points. Optimal conciseness.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates what the tool does and what it returns. The listed items give a clear picture, though it lacks explicit return format or error behavior. This is adequate for a simple health-check snapshot.

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 and an empty schema, so the description correctly adds no parameter-specific information. Per the rubric, zero parameters baseline is 4.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Laravel Horizon health'), listing exact data points (supervisor states, paused status, failed jobs per minute). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_queue_status by focusing on Horizon specifically.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, exclusions, or specific scenarios. The word 'Horizon' implies a Laravel-specific context, but explicit usage instructions are absent.

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