Hermes status overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by clarifying the aggregation scope (install, profile, toolkit, config, API config metadata) and the constraint of no prompt-bearing calls. No annotations are contradicted, and the description aligns with the read-only/idempotent framing.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and scope. Every element — the five metadata categories and the 'without live prompt-bearing calls' exclusion — earns its place and adds meaningful information in compact form.

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 has an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), plus 100% schema coverage on parameters, the description is largely complete for an aggregate-status tool. The exclusion of prompt-bearing calls is a valuable behavior note. It could benefit from hinting what consumers might do with the data, but this is minor given the strong structured coverage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (home, profile, toolkit_root) already documented in the schema including constraints like 'Must resolve under configured allowed roots' and pattern validation. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description's scope language (install, profile, toolkit) maps loosely to the parameters but doesn't add syntax or format detail.

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 ('aggregate') with an explicit resource scope ('read-only Hermes install, profile, toolkit, config, and API configuration metadata'). It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by emphasizing 'without live prompt-bearing calls', which distinguishes it from tools like hermes_gateway_status or hermes_api_smoke. The scope delineation across five metadata categories is precise and actionable.

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 states it avoids 'live prompt-bearing calls', implying this is a safe/read-only overview tool compared to action-oriented siblings, which gives implicit usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over related siblings like hermes_detect_install, hermes_toolkit_info, or hermes_config_summary, nor does it state when NOT to use it. The distinction is implied rather than stated.

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