get-status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what kind of information is returned (e.g., JSON structure, text output) or address behavioral aspects like error handling, which would be helpful for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'statusType' fully documented in the schema including its enum values. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the differences between status types like 'config' vs 'flags'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'status information about the Prometheus server', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get-targets' or 'get-rules', which also retrieve information from Prometheus, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-alerts' or 'get-rules'. It doesn't mention specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no context for tool selection beyond the general purpose stated.

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