ik_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It describes a read-only diagnostic operation (resolving paths, checking availability) and does not mention any side effects. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it's non-mutating or require any prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity about potential failures or environment requirements.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose with 'Diagnostics:' and lists the specific outputs. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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's low complexity (0 params, no schema requirements), the description covers the main purpose and output areas. It doesn't state the return format, and since there's no output schema, an agent may not know the exact structure, but the core functionality is clear enough for a simple diagnostic 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, so there is nothing to explain beyond the schema. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 begins with 'Diagnostics:' and specifies exactly what is reported: resolved toolchain root, compiler/simulator binary paths, and documentation source availability. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ik_compile or ide_status, which focus on compilation or IDE state respectively.

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 word 'Diagnostics' implies it's for checking the environment, and the listed items (toolchain root, binary paths) suggest when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like ide_status or when not to use it. The usage is implied rather than stated.

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