Octopus status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only check operation (connection and token org), which is non-destructive. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits, such as what happens when connection fails, whether it makes network calls, or what the exact output format is. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is reasonable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and supplemented with a clear use case. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or 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?

For a tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function and purpose. It lacks detail on edge cases or output specifics, but given the tool's simplicity, it is complete enough. The sibling context doesn't introduce additional complexity.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially, as there are no properties). The description clarifies that the tool requires no input, which is sufficient. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds the context of what it checks.

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 the tool's purpose: checking the Octopus connection and revealing which organization the current API token belongs to, with the explicit use case of verifying setup. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('Octopus connection'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like octopus_review_changes and octopus_ask, which are for other actions.

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 includes 'Use this to verify setup,' which provides clear guidance on when to use this tool. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives, the sibling tools' names suggest different functions, and the 'verify setup' context is sufficient to differentiate usage. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions.

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