Lucky status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description aligns with these by saying 'Read' but does not add additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, caching, or side effects. No contradiction exists, so this is adequate but not enriched.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the three pieces of information returned. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant repetition of annotations.

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 read-only status tool, the description is complete: it names exactly what is returned (version, system information, enabled module list) and the annotations cover safety. No output schema exists, but the description provides adequate high-level context for the agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description reinforces what the operation covers, which is sufficient for a no-input tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') plus the exact resources: Lucky version, system information, and enabled module list. This clearly distinguishes lucky_status from siblings like lucky_get_settings or the CRUD tools, whose scopes differ.

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 makes it clear the tool is for retrieving overall Lucky status information, so an agent can infer when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a simple read-only status tool.

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