magg_status

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('Get'), which is standard for status tools, but it lacks explicit statements about non-destructiveness or potential side effects. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the burden, and it barely meets minimal transparency.

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, well-front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

With no parameters and an existing output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description is sufficient for a simple status check. However, it could briefly hint at what statistics are returned to help the agent decide.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information because none exists. Given zero parameters, a score above baseline (3) is appropriate as there is nothing missing.

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 the tool retrieves Magg server status and statistics, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Magg server'). It differentiates from siblings like 'magg_add_server' or 'magg_check', but omits whether it targets a specific server or the global state, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 over alternatives. For instance, it does not explain how 'magg_status' differs from 'magg_check' or 'magg_list_servers', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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