check_seb_extension_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only check but does not disclose details like whether it returns only boolean or additional info, or any permissions needed. Still, it adequately implies a safe inspection operation.

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?

Two sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence clearly states the primary action, the second adds crucial context and next step. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but reported), the description need not explain return values. It provides purpose, usage context, and a link to a sibling. A slight gap: no mention of error conditions or whether the check is synchronous, but overall sufficient for a simple check tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'organizational unit', which maps to 'orgUnitId', but does not elaborate on 'customerId'. No significant enhancement over schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks if the SEB extension is force-installed for an organizational unit. The verb 'Checks' plus specific resource ('SEB extension status for given OU') makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling 'install_seb_extension'.

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?

Provides context that SEB is required for advanced features and directs to use 'install_seb_extension' if not installed. This gives a clear recommendation on when to use this tool versus the sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to other related tools like 'diagnose_environment'.

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