specir_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Report plugin state and database coverage' implies a read-only operation but does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, or output format. It adds minimal context beyond the function name.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Report' and the key resources. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, 'plugin state' and 'database coverage' are vague phrases; giving examples of what these entail would improve completeness. The ambiguity may leave an agent unsure about the exact scope of the report.

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, and the schema shows an empty object with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter details.

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 'Report' and identifies the resources 'plugin state' and 'database coverage', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools (resolve, fetch, explain, search) by focusing on status reporting, though it lacks explicit differentiation language.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like specir_resolve or specir_search. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases from the name and sibling context.

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