get_fallback_status

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints, the description adds valuable behavioral details: it does not download anything, it can optionally query the Zenodo API, and it explains the ENV variable to force the dump. This is non-obvious and useful for an agent.

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 concise, well-structured with a 'Use-Case' section, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds useful context without redundancy.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description provides high-level output details (state, version, coverage) but could be more explicit about return format. However, for a status tool with one optional parameter, it is sufficiently complete.

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 only parameter, check_updates, is explained both in the schema and the description, with the description adding that it queries the Zenodo version API when true. Despite the 0% schema coverage signal (which appears inconsistent with the schema having a description), the description compensates adequately for a single boolean.

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 shows the state and coverage of the offline fallback (SCD dump), specifying what it checks (presence, version, coverage, force method). It contrasts with sibling tools focused on searching/retrieving decisions, making it distinct.

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 provides a clear use-case (transparency) and explicitly notes what the tool does NOT do (downloads nothing), which helps avoid misuse. It does not name alternative tools, but the use-case is self-explanatory and distinct from siblings.

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