Unit Status Tool

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the status is "curated" and lists the included fields, but it does not disclose additional behavioral context such as permissions, caching, or how this differs from unit_show_tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the action and the returned status fields.

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 a fully documented single parameter, a readOnly annotation, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete for a simple status query. Its only notable omission is distinguishing this tool from the overlapping sibling unit_show_tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single unit_name parameter is documented with an example in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Get curated status for a unit," and enumerates the fields returned (active/sub/load state, PID, memory, CPU). It does not distinguish this tool from the similar sibling unit_show_tool, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool rather than unit_show_tool, unit_list_tool, or system_status_tool. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word "status."

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