overte_domain_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the real live path against /nodes.json and /settings.json, the fallback to clearly labeled simulated data, and the return format. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all edge cases like authentication failure behavior.

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 well-structured: a single-sentence purpose, a brief behavioral note, a return format section, and two examples. Every sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 read-only status tool, the description explains the live data source, fallback behavior, and return envelope. The specification of the return format compensates for the absence of an output schema in the provided input. It does not enumerate all possible data fields inside 'domain', but that may be acceptable for this tool's purpose.

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 description coverage is 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds example invocations that demonstrate the host, port, username, and password parameters, but does not elaborate on the ctx parameter, which lacks a schema description. It provides marginal value beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve connected-node telemetry and settings from an Overte Domain Server.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like overte_script_inject, which have notably different purposes.

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 implies usage by stating it retrieves telemetry/settings and mentions a fallback to simulated data when a domain-server is unreachable. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context is clear and there are no conflicting sibling tools. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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