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 implies a read ('Return... status') and hints the response includes a structured cause, but says nothing about latency, whether it contacts the runtime, permissions, or what 'live' actually refreshes—and the cause detail overlaps with the existing 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 sentence with the core action front-loaded, which is good. But the second half is an unnecessarily convoluted clause that costs more parsing effort than the information it delivers, and could have been a plain statement about the state cause field.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema is fully described. What is missing is relational context: no indication of how this differs from health/doctor/logs or the scope of what gets inspected, which leaves the definition only minimally viable for a crowded sibling set.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (runtime, selectors) are already documented in the schema. The phrase 'selected services' loosely maps to selectors but adds no syntax, defaulting, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 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?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Return live status for selected services.' However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like health, doctor, or logs, and the trailing clause about 'the structured cause of a state whose reason is not the state itself' is opaque rather than clarifying.

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 and no mention of alternatives. With siblings such as health, doctor, logs, and ports in the same namespace, an agent gets no help deciding when 'status' is the right call versus those.

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