reachy_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of signaling safety. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose return format, failure behavior, or whether invoking it may trigger any background connection checks. It is minimally transparent but not richly descriptive.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the core resource ('daemon health status and robot connection info') is stated immediately.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable high-level account of what the caller receives: daemon health status and connection info. It is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool, though more detail about the exact health/connection fields would be needed for deeper completeness.

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 an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter-related noise.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource: 'Reachy Mini daemon health status and robot connection info'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reachy_get_state (robot state) and reachy_get_motor_status (motor-specific status), even without naming alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reachy_get_state, reachy_get_motor_status, or reachy_webrtc_stream_status. It states what the tool does but gives no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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