viewer_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the single most important trait: the call is read-only and therefore non-mutating. It does not mention permissions, cost, latency, or whether the report is live or cached, which leaves a mutation-safety-plus-context gap that a status tool with no parameters could easily have closed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the safety qualifier "Read-only" before the content list. The parenthetical enumerations are dense but every item earns its place by signalling a distinct reported field; only the run-on list structure costs it a point.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does so field by field (container state/health, DB size, row counts, newest dump, cache entries, cache TTL). For a parameterless read-only status tool this is nearly complete, missing only shape or ordering details of the returned report.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion and instead spends its words on the result content.

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 names a concrete verb-like role ("Catalogue viewer") and enumerates the exact resources inspected: catalog, catalog-db, catalog-dump containers, database size and row counts, newest dump file, p5_cache entry count and TTL. That is far more specific than a tautology, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from near-siblings such as container_status, status, or health.

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 prefix "Read-only" plus the catalogue-only scope implies when to call it (inspecting catalogue/container state without side effects), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It never names an alternative such as container_status or status, so the agent must infer the boundary from the resource list alone.

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