status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not say whether this is a read-only, side-effect-free call, how often status can be polled, or whether presence is cached/stale. For a presence lookup with related tools like 'watch' and 'poll', this context matters.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is efficient, though too thin to earn full marks given the surrounding ambiguity.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema, no annotations), so a one-liner can suffice. Still, it leaves the key question of whose status is returned unanswered, which is exactly what the description should resolve for a presence 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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4; the description adds only the notion of presence, with no format details to convey.

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?

It states a clear verb and resource ('Show ... online status'), which is better than a tautology. However, 'a user's' is ambiguous given the tool takes zero parameters, so it is unclear whether it returns the caller's own status or someone else's. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'me' or 'profile'.

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 guidance on when to call this versus 'me' or 'profile', and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must guess whether this is a self-status check or a gateway to other users' presence.

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