show_glama_status_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions return format (ToolResult with PrefabApp card and plain-text fallback) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, idempotency, or any side effects. No reference to authentication or data freshness is made.

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?

Description is brief, front-loaded with purpose, followed by content list, return format, and example usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, displayed information, and return format. It lacks mention of error cases or prerequisites (e.g., authentication), but is sufficient for a simple status card.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info as there are none, but baseline 4 is appropriate since the schema already covers everything.

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?

Explicitly states it shows fleet Glama score overview as a Prefab card, listing specific displayed content (grade distribution, per-repo scores, worst tools, stale repos). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like show_glama_repo_card (single repo) and glama_status (text status).

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?

Description implies usage for fleet-wide overview via 'Show fleet Glama score overview' and provides examples. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is given. In context of siblings, the purpose is clear but not formally stated.

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