get_status

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

Annotations already declare the read-only profile, so the lower bar applies; the description's contribution is enumerating the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not state whether values are a point-in-time snapshot, whether the daemon must be running, or how current the counts are. The annotations themselves are internally odd (readOnlyHint=true alongside destructiveHint=true), but the description neither contradicts nor clarifies that.

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 dense fragment with zero filler, and the most important identifier (daemon state) leads. It is slightly under-specified rather than padded — it reads as a field list, not a complete sentence, which costs a point against the top mark.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is essentially the whole contract, and the description does that. Remaining gaps (snapshot semantics, daemon availability) are minor for this complexity level.

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 baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly spends no words on arguments.

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?

Names the resource precisely ('Daemon state') and enumerates the specific fields surfaced (proxy address, flow count, active rules, paused breakpoints, recording flag), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource sentence, but the tool name supplies the verb and no sibling in the list is a status getter, so confusion risk is low.

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 no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives (e.g., list_rules for rule detail, list_requests for flow detail), no prerequisites, and no statement of freshness or cost. The agent must infer that a cheap read-only snapshot exists and when it is preferable to richer queries.

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