get_all_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks 'live' status and returns a grouped summary, suggesting a read-only operation. While it does not explicitly state safety or side effects, the behavior is transparent and non-destructive.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the action and result in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a use case without any 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?

Given no parameters or output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output format. It is complete for a simple health check tool, though it could mention error handling or caching for higher 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline score of 4 since no parameter description is needed.

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 checks live status of all tracked services and returns a summary grouped by status. The use of 'ALL' in caps distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_status (single service) and check_multiple (likely multiple but not all).

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 provides context by stating it is useful for a quick health check across the stack, implying it is for overall status rather than individual services. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context is clear.

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