mogut_status

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It meaningfully discloses that verify=true triggers a live API test of each stored credential, which is the key side-effect an agent needs to anticipate. It doesn't note potential slowness or failure modes, but it is still notably transparent for a status tool.

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 sentences, and both are informative. The first fronts the categories that compose the status report; the second explains the optional verify behavior. No excess text or repetition is present.

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?

With one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough of what it returns to call the tool correctly. It could be more explicit about how credentials are represented when verification fails or what exactly 'next tier would add' looks like, but the current text provides a suitable functional map.

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 schema already contains the parameter definition, including the behavior, with 100% coverage. The description largely restates this: 'each stored credential is tested against its API' mirrors the schema. It adds no additional semantic detail.

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 enumerates specific status categories — current tier, loaded profiles, credential/optional-key state, source health, database info, and next-tier additions — so the tool's purpose is clear despite the absence of an explicit verb. It also broadly differentiates itself from sibling tools that perform setup checks or discovery, since this is the only status-oriented one that returns this exact bundled snapshot.

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 listed content implies this is the tool to inspect overall system state, but no explicit when-to-use guidance is given. There is no mention of when an agent should prefer mogut_setup_check or mogut_discover_profiles instead, so usage has to be inferred.

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