openwebui_get_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It communicates a read-only check of status/version/health, implying no side effects. However, it does not detail return format, authentication, or potential latency—basic but not extensive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a practical usage note. No wasted words.

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 simple status check with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and usage. It mentions status, version, and health, covering likely return contents. Nothing more is required.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description need not add parameter details; the baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and the description correctly omits parameter information.

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 checks Open WebUI system status, version, and health, using the specific verb 'check' and a distinct resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on chats, files, knowledge, functions, etc., as none cover system status.

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 clear context, noting it is useful for verifying connectivity and confirming the running version. While it does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, the status check is unique among siblings, so no exclusions are needed.

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