portainer_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses the type of information returned (connection status, auth status, endpoint count, Swarm cluster flag) and implies a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state side effects or failure modes, but for a status-checking tool, the behavior is adequately described.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that pack all necessary information without redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds a useful contextual note. No wasted 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?

The description covers what the tool does, what it reports, and why it matters (decision between service- and container-level tools). Combined with the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the agent has enough context to use the tool effectively. The note about 'first thing' provides strategic context that enhances 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, and the input schema is empty. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description correctly omits any parameter details since none exist.

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 function: check Portainer connection and authentication status, plus report endpoint count and Swarm cluster status. This is a specific, well-defined purpose that distinguishes it from the many sibling tools (e.g., it's not about managing containers or networks). The phrase 'the first thing an agent needs' further clarifies its role.

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 gives implicit usage guidance by positioning the tool as a preliminary check for deciding between service-level and container-level tools. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you need to verify connectivity or cluster mode,' the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to invoke it. It lacks explicit alternatives but the hint about decision-making is valuable.

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