agent_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions authentication requirement (access_token or public_key_hex) and provides an example response, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like side effects (none expected), rate limits, or error behavior for failed auth.

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 concise with a clear summary, authentication note, and example. However, the example response block is large and could be trimmed or referenced externally.

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 output schema, the example response covers key fields (agent_id, scores, scopes, pending_confirmations, active_attestations). Missing details on error responses or pagination, but these are not critical for a status snapshot.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters are only named. The description partially compensates by showing an example call with access_token and mentioning both auth methods, but does not explain when to use each or their format beyond the example.

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 clearly states the tool returns a comprehensive status snapshot combining identity, trust scores, pending confirmations, and active attestations. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_pending_confirmations or list_my_attestations.

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 indicates it's useful as a dashboard or health check but does not explicitly state when to use it versus more specific sibling tools like check_trust or get_score_breakdown. No when-not or alternative recommendations are given.

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