system_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the response structure and confirming no side effects and safe frequency. It does not contradict annotations.

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 well-structured with sections for response fields and use cases. It is comprehensive but not overly verbose. Could be slightly more concise, but it earns its 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return fields and their meanings. This makes the tool self-contained and easy to understand. No gaps remain.

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?

No parameters are needed, and the description clarifies that. Since schema_coverage is 100% (no params), the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add more.

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 it returns a comprehensive read-only snapshot of the GIA governance engine's current state. It lists specific fields in the response. The tool is unique among siblings (e.g., phoenix_recovery_health, verify_ledger), as it provides a general status overview.

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 includes a 'USE WHEN' section with four specific use cases, and explicitly states 'READ-ONLY: No side effects. Safe to call at any frequency.' This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool and reassures about safety.

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