linux_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'read-only', which is a positive behavioral trait, but does not disclose what the status includes, whether any permissions are needed, potential side effects (none expected), or the format of the output. For a tool with no output schema, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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, concise phrase with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the read-only trait. However, it is extremely brief and might be considered under-specified rather than appropriately concise, though it does not contain waste.

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?

Given the large set of sibling tools, many with status-related names, the description does not explain what distinguishes this tool or what its output represents. With no output schema, the description should describe the return value or the specific scope of 'Linux application status', but it does not. This leaves the agent uncertain about when and how to use it effectively.

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 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4 because there is no parameter documentation needed. The description adds no param information, but that is not required here.

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 it is a read-only query for 'Linux application status'. It provides a resource ('Linux application') and a general action (status), but does not specify what constitutes an 'application' or what exact information is returned. It is not a tautology and adds 'application' and 'read-only' to the name, but remains vague and does not clearly differentiate from many sibling status tools like show_status or sys_info.

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 alternatives. The description only says 'read-only', which implies it is safe to call, but gives no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that favor this tool over the numerous sibling status commands. No exclusion or alternative is mentioned.

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