show_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it explicitly declares '(read-only)', which is the most important safety-related trait for this tool. It also lists what categories of information are returned, giving the agent a clear expectation of the tool's behavior.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the key resource list and the read-only nature. Every word adds value and there is no redundant filler.

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, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and that it is safe to invoke. It does not describe output formatting or interpretation, but the listed status categories are sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 and the schema is fully covered, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 names specific resource categories (uptime, LAN DNS, IP, per-WAN link status) and marks the operation as read-only, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like show_lan, show_dns, or wan_status, but the combined status scope is recognizable.

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 many more specific status tools among its siblings. It does not state whether this is the preferred overview command or when a user should instead call show_dns, wan_status, or similar.

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