tg_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content scope (who is signed in, alert rules, write permission) but does not explain whether status is fetched live, cached, or how the data is composed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 phrase with no waste. The resource name is front-loaded and the three content items are clearly enumerated. It is concise without sacrificing meaning.

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, the description serves as the main source of return expectations; it lists three status areas but does not describe the response shape or how the status is presented. It also lacks differentiation from sibling status-like tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully covered at 100%. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 resource (daemon/account status) and lists three concrete content areas: signed-in accounts, alert rules, and write permission. This makes the tool's focus reasonably clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like tg_accounts, tg_sessions, tg_rules, or tg_alert.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tg_accounts, tg_sessions, tg_rules, or tg_alert. The description states what it reports but offers no use-case selection criteria or exclusions.

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