get_middleware_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the status check is instantaneous or may involve latency.

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 extremely concise with one sentence. While it is front-loaded and minimal, it sacrifices necessary detail; however, the efficiency earns a 4 given the low parameter count.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks detail on the meaning of 'status' and potential return values, and does not differentiate from similar tools like get_middleware_info.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does not clarify what constitutes a 'middleware_instance_name' or where to obtain valid values (e.g., from list_middleware_instances), leaving the agent to guess.

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 'Get the status of a middleware instance' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_middleware, stop_middleware, or list_middleware_instances, which perform different operations.

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. For example, it does not explain how it differs from get_middleware_info or whether it should be used before operations like restart_middleware, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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