agentbus_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 states the tool returns health and topic list, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, non-destructive, or has any effects on the system. For a tool with no annotations, more behavioral context is needed.

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 very short (single phrase), making it concise and front-loaded. However, it could be improved by expanding to a complete sentence for clarity.

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 no parameters, an output schema exists (though not detailed here), and sibling tools are listed. The description is somewhat complete for a simple status tool, but lacks guidance on usage context and behavioral guarantees. It adequately identifies the return content but could mention that it is a read-only operation.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (no properties). The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none. A baseline of 4 is appropriate here.

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 'Workspace bus health and topic list' is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action. It implies the tool returns health status and a list of topics, but lacks a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', making it slightly vague. It does distinguish from siblings (agentbus_poll, agentbus_publish) by indicating it's a status check.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without context, an agent may not know when to invoke this over agentbus_poll or agentbus_publish.

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