offsite_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavior burden and does state 'Read-only', describes per-pool volume locations, and discloses the no-volume-out warning. It also says the path argument adds a fetch list, but it does not specify permissions, failure modes, or exact output shape.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only', then the per-pool report and path extension. It is telegraphic but every phrase carries domain meaning.

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 one-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope, warning behavior, and the optional path's effect. The remaining gap is the ambiguous relationship between path and restore_options, which matters for correct invocation but is not fully resolved.

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 optional path parameter has no schema description (0% coverage); the description partially compensates by saying it adds the fetch list for 'that restore_options result'. However, it does not define what path points to or what the fetch list contains, leaving the parameter only loosely specified.

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 identifies a read-only status report scoped to tape pools and lists what is reported: volumes in the library, mail slot, or out, plus an offsite warning. It is specific and hard to confuse with generic status siblings, though it never explicitly states a verb like 'returns offsite status' or names a sibling alternative.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is named for checking pool or offsite state. The path note explains an optional mode but not selection criteria versus restore_options or pools.

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