web_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent already knows writes are possible. The description adds valuable nuance beyond that: 'Without arguments nothing changes' clarifies that inspection is non-mutating, and it names the four mutating parameters, which is genuinely useful context for a dual read/mutate tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary 'show current state' purpose, followed by usage guidance and the read-only-by-default caveat, then a sibling pointer. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned state categories, so an agent knows what to expect. It lacks detail on how reset parameters interact or what the mutation returns, leaving a minor gap for a tool with five optional mutating parameters.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter, and the description's note that clear_cooldown/forget_tier/clear_budget/clear_cache take a domain largely restates that. It adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and resource (the current state) and then enumerates exactly what state is exposed (tiers, cooldowns, budgets, routes, sessions, crawls, solver stats, dashboard URL). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling web_log by naming it as the place for per-domain history.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('use when something is blocked or slow to see why') and frames the tool as the entry point for resetting state, plus routes to web_log for history. It does not spell out when-not-to-use or privilege requirements, so it falls short of a full 5.

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