get_node_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It honestly states it returns only status, implying a read operation. However, it does not disclose error handling or response format. Given simplicity, it's mostly adequate.

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, with only three lines and bullet points for usage guidelines. Every sentence is meaningful and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 required param, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It lacks error or prerequisite details but is still sufficient for basic status retrieval.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the 'node_id' parameter beyond what the schema already provides. No guidance on how to obtain or format the ID is given, leaving the agent with incomplete information.

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 retrieves ONLY the online/offline status for a specific node, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_node_details' by explicitly noting that comprehensive info is available through that alternative.

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 provides explicit conditions for when to use this tool (user asks about status/online/offline) and when not to (for comprehensive info, use 'get_node_details' instead). This clear guidance helps the agent select the right tool.

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