fleet_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire burden. It does not state that the call is read-only and side-effect free, whether it probes or starts agent backends to determine availability, or how expensive it is. For a zero-parameter status probe that could plausibly touch process state, that omission matters.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is good. But the fragmentary construction (a list with no main verb) makes the purpose slightly harder to parse than a plain 'Reports your role, available backends, and visible agents.'

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 annotations, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it names the three data groups but not the shape, whether 'agents you can see' means active vs. reachable, or what the role values signify. Adequate to guess the call, not enough to know what comes back.

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 and the schema is trivially empty, so there is no parameter meaning left to convey. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the description is missing on this dimension.

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 enumerates the three things the tool surfaces (your role as lead/manager/child, working agent backends, and visible agents), which is more specific than the bare name. However, it is a verbless noun phrase that never states what the tool actually does (report/return status), and it draws no distinction from siblings like get_agent or list_files, so an agent must infer that this is the fleet-wide overview call.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_agent for a single agent or the other fleet siblings. The agent must guess that this is the entry-point orientation call rather than a targeted lookup.

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