get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool checks connection status and returns version information, implying a safe, read-only operation. While it does not explicitly mention side effects (or lack thereof), the nature of a health test is clear enough for an agent.

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 entire description is a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 no-parameter, read-only health check tool, the description is fully adequate. It explains what the tool does and what information it returns (connection health and version). The lack of an output schema is acceptable given the simplicity, and no additional context is necessary.

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 the schema is empty. The baseline for parameter scoring is 4, and the description correctly references the health-test and version information, which is all that is needed. No parameter documentation is required.

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 ('Vérifier') and a specific resource ('l'état de la connexion à l'API Dolibarr'), clearly distinguishing this as a health-check tool. It further clarifies with 'test de santé et informations de version', leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function relative to its many siblings.

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 purpose implicitly suggests using this tool to verify API connectivity before other operations, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. With 150 sibling tools, a brief note about using this as a preliminary health check would have strengthened the score.

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