nostrclaw status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond those booleans by disclosing that signing is not enabled, which tells the agent what operations are impossible on this server, plus that the output covers allowed relays and limits.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with what the tool reports, then the three content categories. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does enumerate the returned content (relays, limits, read-only status). It stops short of describing the shape or format of the response, which is a minor gap for a diagnostic tool.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no misleading parameter language. No further param detail is needed or possible.

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 ('Shows') and resource ('how this server is configured') and enumerates the concrete content: relays it may talk to, its limits, and read-only status. This is clearly distinguishable from data-oriented siblings like relay_overview or recent_events, though it never names or contrasts with any sibling explicitly.

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: an agent can infer this is for inspecting/verifying server configuration and capabilities, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. With eleven sibling tools and no routing guidance, an agent must reason about fit on its own.

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