cedulon_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the specific data fields exposed, but does not disclose any further behavioral details such as response format, freshness, or failure modes. This is comparable to a straightforward status read where the annotations carry the main burden.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the most important information: it enumerates exactly what the status tool exposes. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 status endpoint with read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it names the key result fields. There is no output schema to supplement the return values, but the listed fields are concrete enough for an agent to understand what this tool offers in the context of its siblings.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. With 0 params, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to compensate for any parameter coverage gap.

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 title 'Server status' plus the description's list of returned data ('Server version, policy summary, receipt count, and chain head hash') clearly identifies this as a read-only status tool. It is distinct from the sibling tools (spend, audit, verify_receipt, export_ledger), though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'gets'.

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 no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus its siblings such as cedulon_audit or cedulon_export_ledger. There is no stated condition, exclusion, or mention of alternatives; usage is only weakly implied by the word 'status' in the title.

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