devutils_status

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

Without any annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only says 'Show', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether calling this tool consumes trial uses, makes network requests, or has any side effects. Given that 'remaining trial uses' is part of the output, it is especially important to clarify whether the status check itself counts as a trial use.

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 that lists the three pieces of information shown. It is concise, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no unnecessary words or filler.

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 output schema, the description covers the main purpose but lacks details about the return format (e.g., structured JSON vs. plain text) and any potential side effects. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least indicate the nature of the response, but it only says 'Show' rather than specifying what the caller receives.

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 schema is empty with 100% coverage (vacuously). According to the rubric, a tool with no parameters gets a baseline of 4, and the description correctly does not attempt to add parameter meaning where none exists.

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 the specific verb 'Show' and identifies the exact resources: license status, available tools, and remaining trial uses. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling utility tools, which all perform specific data transformations rather than providing meta-status information.

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 the clear use case: call this tool when you need to check license status, see what tools are available, or check remaining trial uses. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for this status-checking tool, especially given the distinct purpose compared to sibling tools.

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