glama_status

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It details each operation (list, get, worst_tools, refresh, etc.) and mentions preconditions, but does not explicitly state side effects or mutability. While it covers the purpose of operations like 'refresh' (rescrape) and 'add_repo' (add a repo), it lacks explicit disclosure of whether operations are destructive or require special permissions. However, the level of detail provided is sufficient for basic understanding, warranting a score of 4.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary, followed by structured sections for usage guidance, preconditions, and operations. It is well-organized but slightly lengthy due to the detailed operation list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure aids readability. It could be slightly more concise, but it's effective.

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 complexity (multiple operations, 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema), the description covers key aspects: when to use, operations, preconditions, and parameter roles. It does not explain return values, but the presence of an output schema mitigates this. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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% (all parameters described in input schema), but the description adds value by listing all operations beyond the schema's description, which omits 'add_repo', 'remove_repo', and 'reload_config'. The description clarifies the meaning of each operation and the context for 'repo_name' (required for get). It compensates for the schema's incompleteness, adding meaningful context for parameter usage.

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 as a 'Fleet-wide Glama score tracker -- query per-tool TDQS grades.' It lists specific operations and distinguishes from siblings by specifying when to use (fleet scores, docstring fixes, refresh) and when not to use (code diagnostics, submission/review). The verb 'query' and resource 'Glama scores' are explicitly defined, and the tool is differentiated from siblings like 'glama_scores_summary' and 'show_glama_repo_card' through usage guidance.

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 includes explicit 'When to use:' and 'When NOT to use:' sections. It provides clear context for appropriate use: checking fleet scores, finding tools needing docstring fixes, triggering a refresh. It also specifies when not to use: for code diagnostics use repo's own tools, for submission/review use glama.ai. Additionally, it mentions preconditions (repo must have been submitted and scored), offering comprehensive guidance for agent decision-making.

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