plate_license

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does a solid job by disclosing two meaningful behaviors: it does not expose the activation key, and it reports an unactivated Starter install honestly. 'Report' also implies a read-only operation. It stops short of describing the output format or possible status values, but it provides more transparency than most simple status tools.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the core action and object in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a valuable behavioral guarantee without unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to agent 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 no-parameter tool, the description is mostly sufficient: the agent knows what is reported and a key edge-case behavior. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe the return format or possible status values, leaving interpretation of the result open. The term 'Starter' is also unexplained, which may confuse agents unfamiliar with Plate editions.

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 already covers the empty input structure with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than repeating schema information.

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, 'Report', and a clear object, 'local Plate activation status', which tells the agent exactly what operation is performed. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by focusing on activation status rather than resolution, kits, checks, pairing, or inspection. The extra note about not exposing the key reinforces the tool's specific role.

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 intended use is implied clearly: use this tool when you need the local activation status of Plate. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like plate_check or plate_inspect, leaving some routing decisions to inference.

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