sassy_offline_status

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the probe behavior: it runs a fresh ~1-2 second probe by default, or reads a cached verdict instantly when probe=false. It also details what the output includes, which is not required but adds transparency about the tool's side effects and latency.

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 long but efficient; it front-loads the purpose and then packs a dense list of output items. Each clause adds useful information, and the parameter explanation is concise. It is not as short as ideal but avoids redundancy and is well-structured, though the long enumeration could be seen as slightly over-specified.

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 has an output schema, the description need not detail return types, yet it still lists the content areas, which is helpful. It covers when to use it, the parameter behavior, and the read-only nature. It lacks explicit error scenarios or prerequisites, but for a read-only status tool this is acceptable; the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema only defines a boolean 'probe' with default true and no description. The tool description fully explains the parameter: 'probe=true (default) runs a fresh ~1-2 second probe; false reads the cached verdict instantly.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, which is essential given the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Runs the real network-state check' and reports the full offline picture. It enumerates concrete output categories (link state, DNS, probe anchors, gate mode, tool counts, substitutes), making the tool's scope unmistakable and distinguishing it from generic status or ping tools. The opening 'Read-only' reinforces its nature.

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 explicitly says 'Use as the first step when connectivity is suspect or before any offline workflow,' which gives a clear trigger condition. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings like sassy_http_ping or sassy_offline_commands.

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