quantaoptima_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a read-only informational check (implied by 'status' and 'shows'), but doesn't explicitly state it's non-mutating or that it requires authentication. It does describe what is returned (tier, limits, available tools, upgrade options), which is helpful. However, an output schema exists, so explaining return values is redundant. The description could note whether this requires an active license or network call, but it's adequate for a simple status check.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a concise list of what's shown. Every sentence earns its place with no filler. It's appropriately sized for a simple status tool.

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 annotations, no parameters, and an existing output schema, the description covers the basics but misses some contextual details. It doesn't clarify how this differs from quantaoptima_chain_status, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or behavioral traits like rate limits or caching. For a status tool, it's minimally adequate but lacks the sibling differentiation that would make it complete.

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 parameter semantics are not applicable. According to the rules, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to discuss parameters, and it doesn't.

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+resource combination: checking QuantaOptima license status and available features. It clearly describes what the tool does, and the second sentence adds what information is shown (tier, limits, tools, upgrades). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this status tool from the sibling quantaoptima_chain_status, which could confuse an agent about which 'status' to call.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus quantaoptima_chain_status or other status-related siblings. The description implies it's for checking license status, but doesn't say when an agent should invoke it (e.g., before attempting optimizations, after a failed call due to licensing). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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