superops_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool shows status, with no detail on what states are reported, whether this is a live check or cached data, or what the response contains. This is minimal and leaves behavioral expectations vague.

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 short phrase with no wasteful content. The key resources are presented immediately and clearly for a zero-parameter status tool.

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?

The tool is simple and has no parameters, but there is no output schema and no explanation of what 'credentials status' or 'available domains' means in practice. An agent knows roughly what it will see, but not the shape or semantics of the returned data, which limits completeness.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description need not compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 a specific operation ('show') and two concrete resources ('credentials status' and 'available domains'). It is clear enough to distinguish this from data-retrieval and mutation siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with similar tools like superops_test_connection.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to call this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer when 'status' is needed.

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