dase_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read-like operation ('report') and includes instructions (likely non-destructive), but does not explicitly state it has no side effects or requires no permissions. The absence of any behavioral detail beyond the core function limits transparency.

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 sentence, front-loading the action ('Report the connection status') and adding the secondary purpose ('with instructions'). Every word is functional and no unnecessary detail exists.

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 simple status tool with no parameters and no siblings, the description is largely complete. It states what is reported (connection status) and the additional guidance provided. However, it does not describe the format of the report or instructions, which could be useful given no output schema.

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 the input schema is fully documented (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information because none exist. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate.

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 reports connection status and provides instructions to bring the designer online. It uses specific verbs ('report', 'bring the designer online') and identifies the resource ('DASE ORM Designer'). Without siblings, differentiation is not needed.

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 implies when to use (when connection status is needed or designer is offline) but does not explicitly state context or exclusions. Since no siblings exist, explicit alternatives are unnecessary, but adding a 'use when' phrase would improve clarity.

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