get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Report' implies a read-only operation, and the content (mode, region, org, token permissions) suggests no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool makes no changes or describe any other behavioral traits such as auth requirements or rate limits. The description adds some context beyond the name but lacks full disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a usage hint. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or repetition.

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 low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It enumerates the status information provided (mode, region, org, token change ability) and specifies when to use it. There is no return type to document, and the description covers the essential aspects.

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 baseline is 4 per the rubric. There are no parameters to explain, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's function rather than parameter details.

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 ('Report') and resource (current mode, region, organization, token permissions), making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all about generating reports, finding clients, or troubleshooting, none of which cover status/mode reporting.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the user asks about their mode or write access.' This provides clear context. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but given the unique purpose and lack of similar sibling tools, this is acceptable.

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