get_openresty_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'get status'. It doesn't disclose whether the status reflects a running process, version info, or health metrics, nor whether it requires the OpenResty runtime to be installed.

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?

A single short phrase with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be genuinely informative.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent unsure what 'status' returns. For a zero-parameter read-only status tool this is minimally adequate, but a brief note on the returned status scope would make it complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get OpenResty status'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_openresty_conf, get_openresty_modules and build_openresty. The parenthetical '(XPack)' is unexplained and adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus get_openresty_conf, get_openresty_modules, or the other OpenResty siblings. An agent must infer that this is the health/runtime check rather than a configuration read.

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