abdm_check_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds specific behaviors beyond annotations by naming what is inspected (reachability, authentication, port discovery, capabilities), giving the agent a concrete picture of the operation's scope.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence with no filler. The verb leads, and the list of inspected aspects is concise and scannable.

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 zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know. It names all key behavior categories and is consistent with annotations.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is automatically 100% and there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and states the exact scope: reachability, authentication, port discovery, and capabilities. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling download-focused tools like abdm_download or abdm_get_queues.

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?

While no explicit when-to-use guidance is given, the context is clear: this is the diagnostic/status tool amid download-management siblings. An agent can infer it should be used to check connectivity and capabilities before performing downloads. No alternatives are named, but the distinction is strong.

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