gauss_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reports status and defines success (installation found and runnable). It does not mention side effects, but for a status tool this is implicitly non-mutating, and no contradiction exists. It could be more explicit about output structure, but given the output schema exists, the description adds sufficient behavioral context.

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 crisp sentences: the first states the core function, the second gives a usage trigger and a success criterion. There is zero padding, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, when to use, and what a successful result means, leaving no gaps given the tool's low complexity.

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 the schema (empty) covers 100% by triviality. The description does not need to explain parameters, so the baseline of 4 is appropriate. It adds no parameter info, but none is required.

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 reports where GAUSS is, its version, and workspace contents, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that manipulate symbols, matrices, or code, establishing this as a status/diagnostic tool.

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 explicit guidance to 'Start here when anything looks wrong,' framing it as a first diagnostic step. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies when not to use it, and the success criterion adds practical usage context.

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