sassy_offline_status

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavior: a fresh probe costs 1-2 seconds and False reads a cached verdict. It also clarifies that the cached verdict is the same one the gate relies on. It could explicitly state that the call has no mutating side effects, but the status-only framing makes that largely implicit.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the answer list in plain language and the parameter semantics in two clear lines. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 one-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation's breadth, the behavior of each mode, and the latency trade-off. Nothing needed for correct invocation or result interpretation 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 0%, but the description fully defines the sole parameter, probe, including both True and False behavior and the latency/source difference. This goes well beyond the schema's title/default and lets an agent choose correctly without further inference.

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 names a specific diagnostic purpose: one call reports connectivity, DNS resolution, loopback inference-server state, fallback-model readiness, and the offline tool split. This is concrete enough to tell it apart from sibling tools like sassy_offline_commands or sassy_offline_handoff.

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?

It gives clear selection guidance for the probe mode: use True for a fresh ~1-2s reachability check and False for the instant cached verdict used by the gate. It does not explicitly name alternatives among sibling tools, but the enumerated use case makes when to call this tool clear.

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