inscada_script_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, establishing the tool as a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the specific statuses to expect but provides no further behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, resource impact) beyond that.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and example statuses, with no wasted words.

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-check tool with one parameter, high annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It provides the necessary context about what the tool checks and the kind of statuses to expect.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'script_id' described as 'Script ID'. The description does not add any extra meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for adequate schema coverage.

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 action 'Check' and the resource 'script execution status', with example statuses like 'Not Scheduled, Running, etc.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like inscada_run_script (which runs a script) and get_script (which retrieves script details).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or context for when not to use it. The purpose implies usage for status checking, but no direct guidance is given.

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