status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what data the call surfaces (per-source last success, current error, record count, daemon health), but never states that it is a safe read-only operation, nor anything about permissions, cost, or side effects.

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 tight sentence with the scope ('each source') and the reported fields front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the verbless phrasing is slightly less scannable than a verb-led statement.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content, and it does by enumerating the key fields and the daemon dimension. For a zero-parameter, non-mutating status tool this is sufficient; only the lack of any usage framing keeps it from a 5.

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; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuously) and matches the empty object schema.

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 clearly states the resource and the specific content it reports: health per source (last success, current error, record count) plus daemon health. It does not differentiate from the terse siblings (since, get, ack), which is why it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as the sibling tools, and no stated conditions. A monitoring intent is inferable from the word 'status', but nothing routes the agent between this and the other tools.

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