get-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 effectively communicates that this is a read-only operation that returns account metadata, and implies it's a diagnostic/status-checking tool. However, it doesn't disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this operation has any side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose and enumerates the returned data. The second sentence provides valuable usage context. There's zero wasted verbiage or repetition.

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 diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining what the tool returns and when to use it. However, without an output schema, the description could more explicitly detail the structure of the returned status information (e.g., whether it's a JSON object with specific fields). This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 100%. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully documents the empty input 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('SecureCodeHQ account status'), listing the exact information returned (plan, usage limits, secrets count, MCP server version). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get-secret' or 'session-status' by focusing on account-level metadata rather than specific resources or session states.

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 explicit context for when to use this tool ('Useful to check remaining capacity and verify the server is up to date'), giving clear practical applications. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for related purposes, which prevents a perfect score.

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