agent_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the agent's location (local on user's computer), its purpose (holding certificate for ANAF/SPV/PDF signing), and that it checks for updates. No hidden side effects or limitations are mentioned, but none are expected for a status check.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by relevant background about the agent.

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 simple status check, the description covers the essential elements: what is checked (running, version, update) and the agent's relevance. It does not mention the return format, but no output schema is provided, so this is not a critical 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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no constraints. The description adds context about what is being checked (running status, version, update availability) which is sufficient given the absence of 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?

Clearly states the tool checks whether the local Storno Agent is running, its version, and whether an update is available. The description also provides context about the agent's role (holding the certificate for ANAF/SPV/PDF signing), making it distinct from sibling agent-related tools.

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?

Implies usage for checking agent status and version, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'agent_certificates' or 'spv_sync_agent_result'. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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