get_instance_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose that the tool tests reachability and reports health. However, it does not describe what 'health' consists of, whether it pings a remote service, or how it behaves when the instance is unreachable. The output schema may cover return values, but behavioral expectations beyond that are unspecified.

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?

A single, direct, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 zero-parameter status-check tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete for selection and invocation. It could add a little more about what 'health' entails or how to interpret the result, but the low complexity and existing output schema moderate that need.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema imposes no interpretation burden. The description confirms the tool performs a no-input health check, which is sufficient given the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('BirdNET-Go instance'), and defines the outcome as reporting health. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which all operate on detections or species rather than instance 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?

The description implies a health-check use case, and the sibling tools' detection/species focus makes it obvious this is the odd one out, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. An agent can infer usage but is not told, for instance, to run this before issuing detection queries.

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