luminus_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the output content (registered tools, active profile, API keys) which suggests a read-only, status-related operation. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements (especially concerning API key exposure), or return format. The description is not misleading but is minimal in behavioral detail.

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 concise sentence: 'Server status: registered tools, active profile, configured API keys'. It is front-loaded with the main concept ('Server status') and every word adds value. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the core purpose and key output fields, but it lacks usage context (e.g., when to call this vs. other server-related tools like luminus_discover) and does not describe the structure of the returned data. For a status tool, this is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema is empty. Per the baseline, a 0-parameter tool earns a 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none. It correctly implies that no input is required.

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 tool's purpose: it provides server status including registered tools, active profile, and configured API keys. This distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools (e.g., get_power_plants) which focus on external data, while luminus_status is about the server itself. The use of 'status' implies a read-only introspection operation, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply lists what the tool reveals. With many sibling tools, an agent could mistakenly use this for data retrieval if not careful. No alternatives are mentioned, and no context is provided for when to invoke it.

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