query_uaio_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the required permission scope and that every call is governed by Arbiter policy and sealed with a ProofLink receipt, adding valuable context. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, but the nature of a status query is clear enough.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and key return metrics, and the second covers requirements and policy. There is no fluff or unnecessary repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately lists the main data points returned (container health, ProofLink receipts, compliance scores, overall status). It also includes auth and policy context. It could be more specific about the response format, but for a no-parameter status endpoint, it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% (trivially), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed since the input schema is empty.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('operational status of the iTechSmart UAIO platform'), and enumerates the specific metrics returned. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_platform_briefing, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides clear context about what the tool returns (real-time platform status, ProofLink receipts, compliance scores, etc.), implying when it should be used. It also mentions a required scope, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

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