ilias_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, and the description usefully adds that the call performs no network I/O, which matters for latency and failure modes. It says nothing further about caching, staleness of the reported login state, or whether the read-only policy is a fixed config or a live server value, so it adds only modest context. Note the mild tension between 'No network' and openWorldHint=true, though openWorldHint concerns the external domain rather than this call's I/O.

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?

Two terse fragments with no filler; the enumerated payload comes first and the operational caveat ('No network') is front-loaded at the end where it is easy to catch. Phrasing is telegraphic noun-list rather than a full sentence, which costs a little clarity but wastes no space.

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?

With zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description need not explain return values, and the complexity is low. It communicates the payload categories and the offline nature of the call, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly; only the relationship to diagnostic siblings remains uncovered.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 4 applies.

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 the concrete contents returned — configuration, login state, request counter, read-only policy — so an agent knows this is a diagnostics/state report rather than a data-fetch tool. The verb 'reports/returns' is implied rather than stated, and it does not name a sibling it replaces, keeping it short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use statement and no alternatives named, even though siblings like ilias_check_all and ilias_scan plausibly overlap as diagnostic entry points. The 'No network' note hints that it is a cheap local preflight check, but that is left entirely to inference.

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