WokiToki status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing what is actually surfaced — connection mode (peer-to-peer vs relay), outbox backlog, and peer counts — which is meaningful diagnostic information beyond the annotations.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the tool's identity and immediately followed by the specific data points returned. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned data points, which is exactly what an agent needs for a zero-param status read. It omits freshness/caching behavior but is otherwise complete for a tool this simple.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a no-param tool applies. The enumerated return fields are informative but not parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific verb ("Show") and a precisely scoped resource ("this WokiToki identity, network connection state, pending outbox size and peer counts"). It is clearly distinguishable from the messaging siblings, though it never names wokitoki_list_peers, which overlaps on peer information.

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?

Usage is only implied: this reads as a diagnostic/health-check tool, so an agent can infer it is the right call before sending or when verifying connectivity. There is no explicit statement of when to use it instead of wokitoki_list_peers for peer data, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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