pospal_openapi_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully explain behavior. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects, authentication needs, or what happens if configuration is missing. This is insufficient for a configuration check 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with no extraneous information. It is efficiently front-loaded and 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?

Given no parameters, the simple purpose might seem complete, but the presence of an output schema (not detailed) and lack of annotations mean the agent lacks context on return format or implications. A slightly more descriptive sentence would improve completeness.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage (vacuously), the description does not need to add parameter info. The baseline of 4 applies because no additional meaning is required, though the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'check' and resource 'appId/appKey configuration', making the tool's purpose easy to understand. It is distinct from siblings which deal with CRUD operations. However, it could be more specific about what 'check' entails (e.g., returns a boolean or status).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for checking configuration, leaving the agent without decision support.

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