stat_full_status

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

The description implies a read-only operation by using the verb 'Fetch', but it does not mention authentication requirements, potential response size, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it falls short of explicitly stating safety or prerequisites.

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 a single, brief sentence with no redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action and resource.

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's simplicity (no parameters) and the availability of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality. However, it does not explain how this 'full status' differs from the related stat_sysinfo, leaving some contextual ambiguity.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description accurately reflects the no-parameter nature.

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 uses a specific verb (Fetch) and identifies the resource (full controller status), clarifying it as system information. However, it does not distinguish between this tool and the sibling stat_sysinfo, which likely serves a similar purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stat_sysinfo or list_health. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected.

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