security_status

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full burden. It discloses return data structure (mode, layers, capabilities) but omits safety profile (read-only status), side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits expected for a security tool. Just meets minimum by indicating retrieval scope.

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?

Single sentence with optimal front-loading: primary action stated immediately, followed by colon-delimited elaboration of return data components. Zero redundancy; every token earns its place.

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 without annotations or output schema, description adequately compensates by enumerating expected return data fields (mode, active layers, detection capabilities). Missing only safety/performance caveats that would be critical for security tooling.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, establishing baseline score of 4. Description appropriately requires no parameter documentation, maintaining conciseness without repeating empty schema structure.

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?

Description provides specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'ShellWard security status' and enumerates returned aspects (mode, active layers, detection capabilities). Effectively distinguishes from sibling 'check_' and 'scan_' tools by positioning this as comprehensive status retrieval versus specific security checks.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over specific 'check_command', 'check_injection', or other sibling tools. Implicit distinction exists via naming and scope, but lacks explicit 'when to use' or prerequisite statements.

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