oura_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavior. It does transparently describe the output (scopes, expiry, file existence/private) and explicitly reports what it will not return, providing good transparency. It doesn't explicitly say the tool is read-only, but the status‑checking nature and local file references (already imply no side effects on remote systems), which is acceptable given the coverage.

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 one tightly worded sentence that front‑loads the primary concept ('Connection status') and then enumerates precisely what is inspected and what is excluded. No filler is present; each clause earns its place.

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‑parameter, no‑output‑schema status tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly the kind of information it will receive and explicitly what it will never return, which is all an agent needs to correctly invoke and interpret the tool's results.

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 an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description instead focuses entirely on the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 function ('Connection status') and lists its exact outputs (token expiry, granted scopes, local config/token file existence and privacy). The explicit exclusions ('Returns no health data and no absolute paths') help distinguish it from sibling tools that return health data, such as oura_daily or oura_sleep_periods.

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 doesn't explicitly say 'use this tool when checking the connection before other calls,' but the 'Connection status' label plus the 'Returns no health data' exclusion provides clear context that this tool is for diagnosing the Oura connection, not for retrieving health metrics. This is an implied but unambiguous routing signal to the agent.

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