get_convoy_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: it is a read-only, host-only operation that never wakes TouchDesigner, and it clarifies routing implications for other tools. It does not detail return format or side effects, but the safety and scope context is valuable and goes beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds routing context. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it reports, that it's safe and passive, and how it relates to other tools' routing. It doesn't enumerate the exact fields returned, but given the absence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameters to describe, and the description appropriately focuses on output instead. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 and resource — 'Report this machine's Convoy host presence and ... realm, peer, queue, and identity status.' The scope is distinct from siblings like convoy_list_nodes or get_td_status. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other status tools (e.g., get_td_status) to help the agent pick correctly.

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 explains when to use it: to check this machine's Convoy host presence, noting it's a host-only read that never wakes TouchDesigner, and that explicit convoy_* tools use this host for remote routing. It implies usage but doesn't state exclusions or name an alternative status tool for comparison.

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