system_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists returned data but does not indicate side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or performance implications (e.g., whether calling this is expensive). It implies read-only but does not confirm safety.

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 sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. It lists many outputs, making it somewhat cluttered but still concise. It is functional but could be better structured into categories or bullet points.

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 simple input schema and no output schema, the description covers the main outputs. However, it lacks usage context, error scenarios, or notes on invocation frequency. For a health tool, agents need to know if it's safe to call frequently; this is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond listing outputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance understanding of when to set schema_introspection to true.

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 combined system health and statistics, listing specific outputs (status, stats, FSRS preview, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_health, which likely focus on a subset. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all health-related siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_health or search. No when-not scenarios or prerequisites mentioned. The description assumes the agent will infer usage from the output description, but lacks explicit decision criteria.

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