AGIW MCP status

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, yet the description still adds genuinely useful behavioral context: it discloses that the output contains no secrets, that the home directory is redacted to '~', and that the call starts no work. That is real value beyond the structured fields for a diagnostic tool.

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 dense sentence with every clause earning its place — the safety note and redaction note are both operationally relevant. It reads as a fragment rather than a complete sentence, which slightly weakens front-loading of the primary purpose.

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 diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers roughly what the caller will receive and reassures about side effects. However, it leaves the response shape unspecified and, more importantly, leaves the overlap with agiw_readiness unresolved, which is the main thing an agent needs to resolve before calling.

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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, which is the right call.

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 is a noun-phrase list of what the tool surfaces (versions, configuration, prerequisite status) rather than a verb+resource statement of what it does. It is not a tautology of the name, but it also gives no basis for distinguishing it from the sibling agiw_readiness, which plausibly covers the same 'prerequisites are met' territory.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent facing agiw_status vs agiw_readiness vs agiw_consent gets no routing signal from this text at all.

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