rsap_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states what it reports, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires an active connection, or whether it triggers any side effects. The word 'Report' hints at a safe read operation, but this is not explicit.

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, short sentence (13 words) that front-loads the verb 'Report' and clearly lists the two outputs. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), so the description covers the basic scope. However, it does not clarify what the 'summary' includes or whether connection is required, which could be important for an agent deciding between this and similar reporting tools.

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 the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed, and there is nothing else to explain beyond the schema's empty object.

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 a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('connection status and a summary of the current Robot model'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rsap_connect (establishing connection) and rsap_calculation_status (calculation progress).

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 usage is implied: one would call this to check connection status and get an overview of the model. However, there are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned, so it stays at the 'implied usage' level.

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