mc8yp Status

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

With no annotations, description fully carries burden. It discloses self-healing (resets if credentials lost), refresh behavior (busts 30-min cache, noop without tenant), and fallback behavior (bundled snapshots, live calls unavailable). Comprehensive and actionable.

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?

Well-structured with main purpose first, followed by details. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose (e.g., explaining fallback in first paragraph could be tighter). Still 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?

No output schema, but description explains what the tool shows (status info). Covers key behaviors, param usage, prerequisites, and edge cases. Missing explicit output format, but sufficient for a status tool.

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% for the single parameter. Description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of refresh and its effect (force fresh discovery, noop when no tenant), which goes beyond the schema's description.

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 it shows CLI status including tenant credentials, active tenant, and API namespaces. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'codemode' only implicitly by describing its own scope, but lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

Provides when to use: checking status, and when to use refresh flag (after subscribing/unsubscribing microservices). Mentions prerequisite (set-active-tenant if no tenant active). However, does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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