get_api_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('Obtiene el estado actual'), but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits like what 'estado' includes (e.g., uptime, version, error rates), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what format the status information returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete in stating the basic purpose. However, it lacks context about what 'API status' entails, which is crucial for an agent to understand what information will be returned. Without an output schema or details in the description, the agent is left guessing about the response format and content.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately doesn't mention parameters. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameter information is needed or expected.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Obtiene') and resource ('estado actual de la API de TinyTasks'), making it immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but since siblings are all task-related operations (create, delete, get, list, toggle, update tasks) and this tool checks API status, the distinction is implicit rather than explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of typical use cases (e.g., health checks, monitoring, troubleshooting) or when NOT to use it. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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