http_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of conveying safety and side effects. 'Look up' implies a non-destructive read operation, which is correct, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid or unknown status codes. For a simple lookup, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded sentence containing only essential information. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is 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?

The tool is minimal with one required parameter, and an output schema exists to define the return shape. The description fully covers the tool's purpose and input semantics, making it complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning by clarifying that the integer parameter is an HTTP status code. Although it doesn't specify a valid range, the single parameter is self-explanatory and well contextualized by the tool name and description.

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 a specific verb ('Look up') plus a specific resource ('HTTP status code') and states the expected result ('name and description'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling utility tools, which are about formatting, UUIDs, base64, and timestamps.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when an HTTP status code needs to be resolved to its name and description. No alternatives are mentioned, but no sibling tool overlaps in functionality, so the usage context is unambiguous.

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