status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys read-only intent via 'Get' and describes output formatting (MB, s) and per-instance behavior, but does not mention error cases, auth requirements, or data safety. The disclosed behavior is useful but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output fields. The conditional instance guidance is concise and both sentences add value with no filler.

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 simple status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key returned fields and instance behavior. It is mostly complete, though it could mention the relationship to health_check, but this is not strictly necessary for a standalone status 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?

The schema describes the 'instance' parameter fully, and the description adds context about when to use it (multiple instances). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description slightly reinforces but does not significantly add beyond the 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 'Get index status' with a specific list of returned fields, indicating a read-only status operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like health_check, but the verb+resource combination is clear.

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 provides conditional usage guidance: 'When multiple instances are configured, pass instance name for per-instance status.' It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like health_check, so usage context is implied rather than fully explicit.

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