maintenance_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. 'Reports' implies a safe read with no side effects, and it names the three data categories returned; but it does not state cost, freshness, or whether calling it affects the daemon. It stays at a minimum-viable level of behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause (status, schedule, recent history) adds concrete scope and nothing is redundant.

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 no parameters and an output schema handling return-value detail, the description only needs to say what the call is for, which it does. The remaining gap is whether the reported 'recent history' has a fixed window or time range, which an agent may want to know.

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 explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies nothing must be supplied to obtain a full status report.

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 ('Reports') and resource (the self-healing daemon's status, schedule, and recent history). The content enumerated makes it clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like maintenance_run and prune_index, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied: it reads as the read-only inspection counterpart to maintenance_run, but the description never says when to call it versus triggering a run. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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