system_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It describes the return as status and latency, implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm safety or mention any authorization needs or side effects. It is adequate but minimal.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and lists services. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value. It covers the main purpose but could benefit from mentioning that it is non-destructive or how to interpret latency. Overall, it is complete for a simple health check tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema covers everything. The description adds value by explaining the output structure (unified status with latency), which is sufficient for this simple tool. Baseline 4 since 0 parameters.

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 the tool's purpose: checking health of all connected services (Home Assistant, OpenClaw, local LLM, Gemini CLI, Codex CLI) at once, returning a unified status overview with latency. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like openclaw_status which likely focus on individual services.

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 implicitly suggests using this tool for a broad overview of all services, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. No exclusions or context for choosing this over sibling monitoring tools.

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