get_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that the tool returns CPU, RAM, disk usage, and version info, indicating a read operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (likely none, but unstated), access requirements, or rate limits. The lack of annotations makes the description minimally adequate.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that covers the purpose and key data points without any wasted words. Every part contributes directly to understanding, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema that likely details the specific fields, the description provides enough context for most use cases. It could be slightly improved by mentioning the output format (e.g., JSON), but with the output schema present, this is not a major gap. The description covers the main purpose thoroughly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data the status includes (CPU, RAM, disk, version) beyond a generic 'get status,' which helps the agent understand the expected output without needing to examine the output schema. This is above the baseline 3.

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 tool retrieves server status including specific metrics like CPU, RAM, disk usage, and version info. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('EVENG server status'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tools' or 'open_lab' that might return other server info, so it loses a point.

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 this is for checking system health or version details, but it provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'list_tools' or 'open_lab'. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for decision-making are included, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the resource name.

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