sienge_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that it reads .env, makes a real API call (company list), and summarizes what is configured and what is missing. It doesn't explicitly state non-destructiveness or failure behavior, but the diagnostic nature makes the main traits clear.

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. The main check and behavioral details are front-loaded, and the usage directive is given as a short closing sentence. Every word contributes value.

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 diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what inputs it uses (.env), what it does (real API call), and what it returns (summary of patterns and missing items). An agent can correctly invoke and interpret the 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description correctly adds no parameter-specific details. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Confere') and resource (Sienge configuration/accessibility), enumerates concrete actions (reads .env, makes a real call, summarizes patterns) and clearly distinguishes itself from the listar_* siblings as a status/diagnostic tool.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Primeira coisa a chamar numa sessão' (call first in a session), giving a clear when-to-use directive. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but for a status check this is sufficient guidance.

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