portainer_status

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. 'Check' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is appropriate. However, it doesn't clarify what action triggers (e.g., pinging the API) or the response structure. The existence of an output schema mitigates this somewhat, but some high-level behavioral context is still expected.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary detail. This is ideal for a simple tool.

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, output schema present), the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states the tool's purpose, though a one-line clarification that this is a quick health check could enhance completeness.

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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level details, but none are needed since there are no inputs. Per guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline of 4.

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 'Check Portainer connection and authentication status' uses a specific verb ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource and scope. It directly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like container management, network operations, or stack deployment, which are all more specific actions.

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, or when not to use it. Given the large number of sibling tools, some context like 'Use this to verify the Portainer API is reachable before performing other operations' would help.

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