Core status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load; it implicitly signals a side-effect-free read by describing only informational outputs, but never states read-only or idempotent behavior explicitly. It does add value by naming the specific data surfaced (uptime, pid, terminal counts, connection details), which compensates somewhat for the missing output schema.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the owning component ('herdr-core's ...') before the field list. It is appropriately sized, though the field enumeration is slightly dense and would read better split.

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 no output schema, the description must convey return contents, and it does list the main fields. For a zero-argument, zero-annotation status tool this is close to sufficient, though it omits error/health semantics (e.g., what an unreachable core looks like).

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or complicates the no-argument call signature.

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 is a noun phrase enumerating returned fields (identity, version, pid, uptime, terminal counts, connection details) rather than stating an action, but it does convey that this is a core/server status read. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the adjacent herdr_app_status sibling, so the agent must infer that one is core-level and the other app-level.

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 call this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as herdr_app_status or herdr_list. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the noun phrase.

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