semantic_scholar_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, indicating a safe, idempotent operation. The description adds context about what is checked (health, connectivity, key status), which is beyond the annotations and useful for understanding behavior.

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 sentence of 7 words conveys the complete purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (mentioned in context), the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose adequately for an agent to decide to invoke it for health checks.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage. Baseline is set to 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description does not need to add parameter info since none exist.

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 'Check server health, API connectivity, and key status' clearly states the action (check) and the resources (server health, API connectivity, key status). Among sibling tools like semantic_scholar_search_papers or semantic_scholar_get_author, this is the only health-check tool, so it distinguishes well.

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 description implies usage for verifying server status before other calls, but it does not explicitly state when to use, when not to use, or mention alternatives. With no sibling health-check tools, the guidance is clear but not explicit.

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