get_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement that it does not start or configure is consistent and adds minimal new context. Without annotations, it would need to say it's non-mutating and safe to call repeatedly, which the description partially does but not explicitly for a no-parameter tool. The description adds little beyond annotations; it could clarify what 'readiness' means or what the response contains.

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, short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Inspect') and the object, then adds a clarifying exclusion. Every word earns its place; it is concise and well-structured.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively complete for a status check. However, it doesn't specify the response format (e.g., what fields are returned), which could be important for an agent to interpret the status. With no output schema, the description could reasonably mention the type of information returned. This is a minor gap but not critical for a no-parameter inspection tool.

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 schema coverage is 100% (vacuously, since no properties are defined). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds context about what the tool checks, which is sufficient.

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 'inspects' a specific resource ('local service and model/runtime readiness') with a specific verb. It distinguishes from configuration by adding 'Does not start or configure the app,' which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like start_run or create_project, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 tool is for checking readiness before starting or configuring, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. The phrase 'Does not start or configure' hints at exclusions, but there's no direct mention of other tools or conditions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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