status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what information is reported, including usage percentages and job states, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, or output organization.

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 first sentence front-loads the scope and enumerates the returned domains efficiently. The second sentence defines a 'pool', which is helpful context but slightly appended rather than structurally integrated.

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 parameterless status tool with no annotations or output schema, the description gives enough detail to understand the categories of information returned. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that it is a read-only aggregate view and how the result is organized.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and there is no inconsistency in the schema.

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 this returns overall P5 status and enumerates the covered domains: tape devices, jukeboxes, pools with usage percentages, and running/scheduled jobs. The word 'Overall' helps distinguish it from more specific sibling status tools, though it does not explicitly frame itself as the aggregate view 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?

Usage is implied by 'Overall' and by the list of domains, suggesting this is the broad status snapshot. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this versus specific siblings such as jobs, pools, or container_status.

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