Catence data status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'Read-only,' which is a behavioral trait, but it does not disclose additional details such as auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond the read-only nature.

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 concise sentence that lists all relevant data aspects, followed by the 'Read-only' qualifier. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with action and resource, making it efficient and scannable.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately explains what data is available. It enumerates the specific status dimensions, which is sufficient for a read-only status tool, though it does not describe the return format or error behavior.

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, and the input schema is empty. Per the rubric, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, as there is no semantic gap to fill.

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 begins with 'Read sync state, data coverage, entity counts, stream availability, unresolved errors, and retrieval-index freshness,' which clearly enumerates the tool's purpose with specific verbs and resources. It also explicitly labels the tool as 'Read-only,' distinguishing it from mutation tools and aligning with its title.

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 implies usage for checking data status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings. It lacks mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria, so the usage context is only implicit.

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