tg_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. The word 'status' implies a read-only operation, and the listed items (signed-in users, alert rules, write permission) provide some behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is side-effect-free, whether data is live, or any error conditions.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It lists key components without wasting words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential scope. It could be improved by mentioning whether this is a real-time health check or a summary, but the current description is adequate for a simple status query given the schema likely documents the return values.

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 accepts zero parameters, so schema coverage is vacuously 100% and the description does not need to explain parameters. The description appropriately omits parameter details, matching the empty input 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 identifies the tool as reporting daemon and account status, with specific items such as signed-in users, alert rules, and write permission. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tg_accounts or tg_alert by presenting a combined status overview, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 implies use for checking overall status but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as tg_accounts, tg_sessions, or tg_rules. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned; the context of being a general status endpoint is inferred.

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