lm_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact - the 1h cache - but says nothing about what happens on a cache miss, whether refresh_updates bypasses the cache, or what the diagnostic output contains.

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 dense sentence with no filler; the cache caveat is placed at the end where it is least disruptive. Every clause carries information.

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 and one undocumented parameter, the description should carry more burden than it does. It tells the agent what domains are covered but not what is actually returned or how this differs from lm_diagnose/lm_runtime, which matters in a 28-tool namespace.

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 0% for the single refresh_updates parameter. The description's mention of an 'official update check (cached 1h)' implicitly gestures at the refresh behavior, which is marginal added meaning, but it never states that refresh_updates forces a fresh check rather than using the cache.

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 names three concrete content areas (live status, compatibility diagnostics, official update check), which is more informative than a tautology. But it is a noun-phrase list with no verb and gives no signal to distinguish it from close siblings like lm_diagnose, lm_runtime, or lm_connections.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With 28 sibling tools including the obviously overlapping lm_diagnose and lm_runtime, the absence of routing guidance leaves the agent to guess which status/diagnostic tool to call.

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