tinyurl_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full load and it does disclose the critical trait: no link is created and no state is written, i.e. zero side effects. It does not say whether it performs a network/token validation call or what it reports when the token or directory is missing, so a little behavioral surface is left uncovered.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The positive scope statement comes first and the negative/guardrail statement second, which is the right front-loading for a status check.

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 no-argument status tool with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to know it is safe and non-mutating. It could note what a successful vs. failed check looks like (since no output schema exists), which is the only remaining gap.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to add at the parameter level. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a concrete read-only check covering exactly what it inspects: connector configuration, token, and the private state directory. The closing clause ('Does not create a link or write state') explicitly separates it from the sibling set, all of which are link-mutating operations. An agent can route to it without opening any schema.

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?

The read-only/no-write framing makes the usage context (verify setup or auth before invoking tinyurl_create or other link tools) clear by contrast. It stops short of an explicit 'call this first when configuration is unknown' instruction or naming a specific alternative, which keeps it from a 5.

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