sysknife_app_armor_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so "read-only" in the description is redundant with structured data. It does add scope (all loaded profiles) and maps to aa-status, which is modest but real context beyond annotations; no permission or output-shape details.

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 compact line that front-loads the action name, the verb, the resource scope, and the parameter/safety summary. No filler.

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-param, read-only status probe with full annotation coverage, the description is sufficient to select and invoke it. The only omission is what the returned profile statuses look like, which is minor given there is no output schema to rely on.

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 confirms "no params," leaving nothing ambiguous about what inputs to supply.

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?

Names a specific verb (show status) and resource (all loaded AppArmor profiles), plus the underlying command aa-status, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It is clearly separable from siblings like sysknife_ufw_status or sysknife_fail2ban_status by subject, though it never explicitly states those distinctions.

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?

"No params; read-only" implies this is a safe inspection call to make when AppArmor state is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. Usage is inferable from the subject matter rather than stated.

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