rba_unified_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states what is verified but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or how failures are reported. The timeout parameter suggests network operations, but this aspect is not explained.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's scope without unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description covers the components checked but omits critical behavioral details such as return format, error behavior, and side effects. Since there is no output schema or annotations, the description should have explained what 'verify' produces, making it inadequate for a multi-component status check.

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% and the description does not mention the timeoutMs parameter. While the schema defines type and bounds, the description adds no additional meaning and fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 the specific verb 'Verify' and lists the three concrete components it checks (RBA websocket service, Instance Manager connector endpoint, executor autoexec copies), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_ws_status or rba_autoexec_targets that each cover only one aspect.

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 for confirming the complete local workflow is operational, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of individual status checks like rba_ws_status or rba_health_check, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria.

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