uad_get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing safety and side effects. 'Report' implies a non-destructive read operation, and the 'before any write' usage hint reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly state that no state changes occur or describe any potential error conditions, so it falls slightly short of full transparency.

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 three sentences with a clear structure: what it does, when to use it, and when not to use it. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose, and the information is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 that there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the essential context: the tool's purpose, appropriate use cases, and exclusions. It is fully complete for a status-reporting 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 schema coverage is trivially 100% and the description need not explain parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not attempt to add parameter-related meaning, which is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Report' followed by a specific list of resources (engine, clock, sample rate, DSP load, Apollo cascade, safety limits), clearly stating the tool's function. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting what it is not for, such as channel levels or meters, and directs to uad_list_channels and uad_peek_meters.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' sections provide clear guidance on when to invoke this tool and when to use alternatives, naming specific sibling tools. This exceeds basic context and directly addresses the decision boundary.

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