blackbox_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that secrets are not exposed and enumerates the returned data, but it never explicitly states this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation, nor mentions permissions or rate limits.

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 overview sentence is front-loaded, the bulleted contents are scannable, and there is no filler. The only minor redundancy is the inline return shape, but it is brief.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be restated, yet the description still helpfully lists what the status payload contains and notes the secrets exclusion. It is complete for a zero-parameter status tool, with only the when-to-use dimension left uncovered.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter semantics to add beyond the empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return a concise overview of BlackBox status') and enumerates the exact contents of that overview, so the agent knows what it gets. It does not name or differentiate from siblings like list_providers or list_assistants, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus the many sibling list/get tools (list_providers, list_assistants, get_memory, etc.). The overview framing implies a broad health-check use, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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