ntd_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by stating the tool is 'Safe, non-disruptive', takes '~2 min', and explains the async behavior with wait=False returning a test id. It discloses the key behavioral traits that an agent needs, though it doesn't detail failure modes or other edge cases.

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 two sentences that front-load the core purpose and expected duration, then followed by parameter and async behavior details. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description describes what the test returns (link state, uptime, flap count) and how to handle wait=False via test_result polling. This gives an agent a complete picture for a diagnostic tool, including safety and time expectations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the service parameter as 'a site alias | service_id' and clarifies the wait parameter's behavior with wait=False. The timeout_s parameter is not directly explained, but the mention of '~2 min' and schema defaults make it inferable. This is good but not complete for all parameters.

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 runs an 'NTD Status test' and specifies the specific outputs: 'NBN box link state, uptime, and dropout (‘flap’ count)'. This distinct purpose differentiates it from sibling diagnostic tools like check_connection and loopback_test.

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 identifies a specific use context: 'the evidence AussieBB's fault process keys on' which indicates when this tool is relevant. It also provides usage guidance for wait=False polling via test_result. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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