Inspect Micro status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only behavior is clear without the description. The description adds useful domain context about the categories of status covered, but reveals no additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination, or scope limitations beyond the linked project.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It efficiently lists the key status categories and scopes the tool to the linked project.

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 simple one-parameter schema, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete for understanding what the tool does. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance to differentiate it from sibling status/usage tools.

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 single parameter 'path' is fully documented in the schema, including its default behavior, so the description does not need to add parameter details. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 applies and the description adds no extra parameter semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource: 'deployment, resource, usage, and health status for the linked project.' It is clear and distinguishes itself as a project-level aggregate status tool from related siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 gives context ('for the linked project') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of closely related siblings such as micro_platform_status, micro_dev_status, or micro_usage. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria are stated.

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