goldhold_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 does disclose that this is a health/sync/system inspection and implies a read-only action, but it does not describe the return shape, possible states, or any side effects. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the action and names three concrete areas of inspection. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool, this is mostly complete for invoking it correctly. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves 'system info' vague and does not indicate what a successful or failed status response might look like, which an agent may need for interpreting results.

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 the input schema already fully describes invocation requirements. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; this matches the zero-parameter baseline.

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 ('GoldHold connection health, sync state, and system info'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which all perform more task-specific actions like updates, tasks, planning, or messaging.

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 the tool is used to inspect GoldHold status, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives or if it should be used before certain operations. There is no direct sibling status tool, so the overlap is low, but the timing/context guidance is not stated.

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