status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the safety profile (read-only) plus a genuinely important behavioral limitation: LOCAL_REGISTRATION_SNAPSHOT does not prove ChatGPT-side publication, remote readiness, or security acceptance. It stops short of describing freshness/staleness characteristics or what the status reflects at call time.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the caveat, with no filler. 'No input' is mildly redundant with the empty schema but costs little and prevents a wasted exploratory call.

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-field documentation is not required, and the empty input is covered. The description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: the scope limitation of the fingerprint. Minor gap is that it never says whether this reflects live state versus a cached snapshot.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly notes 'No input', confirming the no-argument contract. There is no parameter meaning to add beyond that.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('read-only diagnostic status') and sharpens it with 'local tool registration fingerprint', which tells an agent what is actually being reported. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like review_status, request_status, or ping, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Use for read-only diagnostic status' implies the usage context but gives no explicit when-not or alternative comparison against review_status/request_status/ping. The caveat that the snapshot is not proof of remote readiness is a useful interpretive guideline but is framed as a limitation, not as routing advice.

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