Crab-hole Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with these by saying 'Inspect'. The description adds useful context by enumerating the specific status fields covered (health, version, block count, rule counts, memory, blocklist refresh). For a read-only status check, this is sufficient behavioral disclosure.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action verb and resource, then lists the key output areas. Every word earns its place with no 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?

With zero parameters, a clear read-only annotation set, and no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing the main data points returned. An agent can correctly infer what this tool provides and how it differs from config, validation, and listing tools.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline is 4, and the description instead adds value by describing what the status output covers.

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 ('Inspect') and a clear resource ('service health, version, current block count, rule counts, memory, and the latest blocklist refresh'), making its purpose as a status/diagnostic tool clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_crab_hole_config and validate_crab_hole by focusing on health metrics rather than configuration or validation.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The context implies it is the go-to for a health/status overview, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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