get_fleet_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does declare a meaningful trait – 'read-only' – and implies a point-in-time 'snapshot' that is 'latest', adding some value. But it omits auth/permission requirements, rate limits, freshness guarantees, and what the snapshot contains, which are important for a zero-annotation tool.

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 short sentence with no filler; the verb and resource are front-loaded. Every word earns its place for a zero-parameter read 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?

The tool is simple (no params, no nested objects) and the description is minimal but not wrong. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should describe what the snapshot returns or when it is stale, and it does neither. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 ('Return') and resource ('runner fleet snapshot'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also adds a scope qualifier ('latest', 'read-only'). However, it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like get_slo_report or list_recent_incidents beyond the resource name itself.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives in the sibling set (e.g., recommend_runner_capacity, get_slo_report). No prerequisites, no triggering context, and no exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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