status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Report' implies a read-only inspection, and the scope is stated, but the description does not explicitly disclose side-effect-free behavior, prerequisites, or what form the status output takes.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Report') and immediately names the target areas. Every word contributes, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 command, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies what is reported and which components are covered. It could be slightly more explicit about output format or formula-artifact specifics, but the low complexity reduces the need for such detail.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings, and the empty schema already confirms no inputs are expected.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource ('toolchain status (NoirJS, bb.js) and installed formula artifacts'). It is easy to distinguish from the sibling tools 'prove' and 'verify', which perform proof actions rather than status reporting.

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 implies that the tool is for checking the current toolchain/installation state, but it does not explicitly say when to use status versus prove or verify. There is no exclusions or alternative guidance, so the usage context is only implicit.

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