hermes_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific scopes of the check (bridge persistence, health, connectivity, Agent Card summary), which is useful context, but it does not detail return structure, latency, or other behavioral nuances. This is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Check') and then lists the elements, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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 simple status-check tool with no parameters, full read-only annotations, and an output schema present, this description provides all necessary context. It covers the full scope of the tool's function and leaves no ambiguity about what it reports.

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 the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. With an empty schema, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description's mention of what is checked is sufficient.

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 the specific verb 'Check' and enumerates the exact resources checked: bridge persistence, Hermes health, connectivity, and Agent Card summary. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hermes_chat or hermes_task_get, which perform other functions.

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 usage is implied: the description states it checks various status aspects, making it evident this is for status queries. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of alternatives or any exclusions, lacking the direct guidance seen in stronger examples.

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