fleet_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the check scope (headless/authenticated on each machine) and implies a read-only nature via 'Health-check', but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, whether it performs network calls, or how it handles unreachable machines. It could be more transparent about side effects or failure modes.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It avoids redundant phrasing and includes necessary detail about the check scope and optional filters, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It lacks details about return format or error behavior, but for a status-checking tool, the core functionality is adequately conveyed. A 5 would require more context about output or failure handling.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: both parameters have enum constraints and descriptions ('Limit to one agent/machine'). The description's phrase 'Optionally narrow with machine/agent' merely reinforces the schema without adding new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Health-check') and resource ('the fleet', defined as agent CLIs on machines). It names the exact CLIs (claude/codex/agy) and machines (wsl/draydev/ec2), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fleet_run or system_status.

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 gives clear context: use to confirm each agent is headless and authenticated on each machine, with optional narrowing by machine/agent. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for detailed command execution use fleet_run'), but the purpose is specific enough to imply when it's appropriate.

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