arr_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. It implies a read-only diagnostic (checking, reporting version and warnings) and an output schema exists to cover return values, but there is no disclosure of auth needs, rate limits, or failure behavior for unreachable services.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose before the parameter note. Every sentence carries information, though the clipped phrasing ("Check that services answer") reads slightly telegraphic rather than polished.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single parameter is documented in the description. For a one-param, zero-annotation health-check tool this covers what an agent needs, with only permissions and error semantics left unstated.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that service takes one name or empty for all configured services, which clarifies the otherwise opaque default of "". It could add naming format or valid service identifiers to reach a 5.

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?

States a specific action (check that services answer) and the data returned (version and health warnings), which is a distinct purpose from siblings like arr_services or arr_queue. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from, so it stops short of a 5.

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 one concrete usage rule – leave service empty to check every configured service – which tells the agent how to invoke it broadly. It offers no when-not guidance and never contrasts with sibling tools such as arr_services, leaving selection to inference.

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