CLI Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Return' wording is consistent with that. It adds some useful scope ('local ... status', 'active configuration metadata') but does not explain nuances such as whether this is entirely offline or how it reflects the current profile state.

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, front-loaded sentence states the action and resource with no filler. Every word adds information, and the most important term ('status') appears early.

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?

For a read-only, optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It tells the agent the tool is local, that it reports status and active config metadata, and the schema covers parameters and return shape; only sibling differentiation and a bit more behavioral context are missing.

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 100% and every optional parameter (baseUrl, profile, frontendUrl) is individually documented with defaults. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema carries that burden.

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 a clear verb ('Return') with a specific resource ('local Cloudeval CLI status and active configuration metadata'), so an agent understands what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like config_show or auth_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus alternatives; no alternatives are named and no conditions are given. The only implicit signal is the tool's name/status, so an agent must infer use cases.

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