status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It lists what status covers but never explicitly states that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or requires any prerequisites.

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 compact sentence front-loads the core scope and adds a specific extra detail (orphaned kernels) with no filler.

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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema present, the description covers the report scope succinctly. It would be slightly stronger with an explicit read-only note or usage guidance, but nothing essential is missing given the schema.

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, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. Schema coverage for the empty parameter set is effectively complete.

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 names the resource and scope: server, kernel, installation status, and orphaned kernels. It lacks an explicit verb, but 'status' plus these objects makes the purpose recognizable and distinct from sibling tools like kernel.

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 given on when to call status versus alternatives such as kernel or evaluate. The sibling list suggests it is a read-only monitoring tool, but the description never states when it should be preferred.

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