get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the return values (operational/degraded/partial_outage/major_outage/maintenance) and implies read-only behavior. It does not mention caching or authentication, but for a simple status check, this is sufficient.

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 immediately conveys the purpose, scope, and return values. No extraneous information, perfectly front-loaded.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the necessary aspects: what it does, what services it works with, and what it returns. It is complete and informative for agent selection and invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100% with the parameter having a clear description including reference to 'list_services'. The tool description adds examples ('github', 'openai', 'stripe'), which provides additional clarity but does not significantly enhance the schema's inherent meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the verb 'Check' and specifies the resource 'live status of a specific service' with examples. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'check_multiple' (multiple services) and 'get_all_status' (all services).

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. While the sibling names imply different use cases, no direct guidance is provided. There is a hint in the parameter description to use 'list_services' for service IDs, but that is parameter-level, not tool-level.

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