get_carp_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the qualifier 'current' which hints at a live snapshot, and expands the acronym, but does not disclose response behavior, permissions, or other operational details beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. It effectively conveys the tool's purpose in minimal words.

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 (no parameters, no nested objects, output schema present) and the read-safe annotations, the description covers the essential purpose. The output schema handles return value details, so no additional explanation is required.

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 the schema fully documents the input surface. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed; per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequate.

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 specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resource 'CARP (Common Address Redundancy Protocol) status', expanding the acronym for clarity. This distinguishes it from sibling status tools like get_gateway_status by naming a distinct protocol.

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 via its resource name but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_gateway_status or get_openvpn_status. For a simple getter, the intended use is self-evident, but it lacks any exclusions or situational context.

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