octane_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Return' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, safe, or has no side effects. The simplicity of a status-check tool partially compensates, but more transparency would be beneficial.

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, clear sentence. It is extremely concise with no redundant words or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and has an output schema, the description is fully adequate. It states exactly what data the tool returns, and the output schema handles the return structure details. The context is complete for a simple status query tool.

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, and the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly explains the output scope.

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 lists three distinct resources: Octane X app, bridge heartbeat, and command queue status. This clearly defines what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like octane_bridge_process_status or octane_ping.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are related tools (e.g., octane_bridge_process_status), but no indication of when to prefer this one. No exclusions or context are given.

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