clo_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose the read-only nature and that it returns instructions on failure, but it does not clarify what 'instructions' contain, whether any side effects are possible, or any timeout/availability behavior.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It efficiently states the check, the object, and the failure behavior.

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 status tool, this is nearly complete: what is checked, what is returned on failure. It lacks only a bit of detail on the success response or any prerequisites, but these are not critical for a health-check tool.

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 takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about what the status check determinesebbende, which is meaningful even without parameters.

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 specific action ('Check whether CLO is running and the in-CLO bridge is reachable') with a clear subject and scope, and it is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like clo_launch or clo_stop_bridge.

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 implies a preflight use case by checking reachability)Skip, but it does not explicitly tell the agent when to call it or when to prefer a sibling (e.g., 'call this before launching' or 'if unreachable, use clo_launch'). The context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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