asc__status

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

Annotations mark the tool as read-only. The description discloses that the tool may issue up to three API calls depending on parameter settings, and that the credential check is a 'single lightweight request'. However, it does not explain error states or rate limit impact beyond reporting the remaining limit.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the main reporting capabilities. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient 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 no output schema, the description lists the items reported (config, domains, JWT, rate limit, credentials), which provides adequate context. Parameter explanations are in the schema. It is sufficiently complete for a status 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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: report server configuration, spec version, loaded domains, JWT token state, and remaining API rate limit, plus verify credentials. It distinguishes from siblings like asc__discover_domains and asc__search_tools by focusing on status and connectivity checks.

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 usage as a health/status check but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions credential verification and API calls, but no guidance on when not to use or trade-offs compared to sibling tools.

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