Backend Status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Show' implies a read-only diagnostic, and the explicit note that a missing install is reported rather than erroring is a meaningful behavioral trait with remediation. However, there is no explicit statement that the tool performs no mutation, nor any handling of the case where the managed backend is not running (which the sibling attach_backend suggests is possible).

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?

Two short sentences: the first front-loads the full inventory of reported items, the second handles the empty-install edge case with a pointer to the fix. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it still summarizes them well plus the missing-install failure mode. The remaining gap is that a managed backend may not be attached (per the attach_backend sibling) and the description does not say what happens then or which tool to call.

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 per the baseline this scores 4. No parameter semantics are needed or expected, and the description correctly spends no space on arguments.

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 enumerates exactly what is reported: the GNU Radio 4 install in use, the managed gr4cp_server backend with URL/pid/log, catalog size and schedulers. This is far more concrete than the bare name, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with adjacent status/listing siblings such as session_status or list_sessions, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 gives one concrete conditional path: when no GR4 install is found, the result says so and the agent should call set_gr4_install. That is a genuinely useful when-not/alternative pairing, but it covers only a failure branch — there is no statement of when to call this rather than session_status, list_sessions, or attach_backend in the normal case.

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