icloud_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implicitly signals a read-only, non-mutating operation and tells the agent what state is inspected, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, failure modes (e.g., what "session works" returns when it does not), or rate limits. Adequate for a simple diagnostic, but not rich.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, and the three reported facts are front-loaded after the verb. Nothing is padded and nothing material is omitted for a tool of this size.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and with zero parameters there is no schema burden. It covers what is checked and implies the read-only nature. The one gap is that it does not help the agent position this against sibling status/info tools, though that is largely a routing concern rather than a completeness defect.

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 by the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly does not invent parameter detail.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Report") and enumerates exactly what is reported: the Apple ID in use, whether the saved iCloud session works, and the local sync folder. That is far more concrete than a generic status tool, but it never distinguishes itself from sibling icloud_info or icloud_list, which an agent might reasonably confuse with this one.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the enumerated outputs (Apple ID, session validity, sync folder) make it clear this is the connectivity/diagnostic check an agent would run before sync, read, or upload operations. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no named alternative (e.g., icloud_info), so guidance remains inferential.

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