system_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a read-only operation, and the description adds meaningful context by specifying 'non-sensitive', 'local', and 'schema status'. This helps an agent understand the data scope without contradicting the annotations.

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 description is a single, tightly scoped sentence with no filler. Every qualifier ('non-sensitive', 'local', 'health and schema status') contributes directly to tool understanding.

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 zero-parameter status tool with readOnlyHint and an output schema, the description is complete. It identifies what is returned and the scope, and the output schema can define the actual return structure without burdening the description.

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 schema description coverage of 100% is vacuous. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies and the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource: Alfred's non-sensitive local health and schema status. The qualifiers 'local' and 'non-sensitive' distinguish it from sibling status tools like composio_status and connector_status.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the 'local' qualifier implies it is for Alfred's own status rather than external connectors, no explicit comparison or exclusion is provided for sibling status tools.

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