tools_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned contents (platform, Python version, optional native tools, access policy), which partially compensates for the missing output schema, but it never states that this is a side-effect-free read or whether the policy check has any cost or prerequisite.

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-fragment with no padding, and the most decision-relevant item (available native tools) is listed early. It loses a point only for being a fragment that omits the verb that would state the action.

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-param status tool with no output schema, enumerating the return contents is genuinely helpful. However, 'the host access policy in force' is left undefined, and the description omits the key operational fact an agent needs: that this should be consulted before invoking tools that depend on sleuthkit, exiftool, or host read access.

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 empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter confusion is possible.

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 enumerates the specific resources reported: platform, Python version, optional native tools (sleuthkit, exiftool), and the host access policy. That is concrete and clearly distinct from the analysis siblings (ls, stat, yara_scan). It is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb, so the agent must infer it is a status/query tool rather than being told.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. An agent is not told to call this first to discover whether sleuthkit or exiftool-backed tools (extract, exif, timeline) are actually available, nor that the host access policy constrains what other tools can read. The only usage signal is implied by the content list.

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