aegis_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, and an output schema exists, so the safety and return-format burden is handled elsewhere. The description still adds genuine behavioral context: it reports readiness, identifies missing checks, and provides fix guidance, which is not captured by annotations.

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, both front-loaded: the first states what is returned, the second states when to call. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 diagnostic tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing piece – the invocation trigger. An agent knows what it produces and when to reach for it.

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 baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 specific verb and resource ("Show which AEGIS checks are ready, which are missing") plus the remediation angle. It is clearly the diagnostic/setup tool in the family, but it never names a sibling it differs from among check_citations/check_guidelines, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

"Call this first if a check is skipped or reports 'unavailable'" gives an explicit trigger condition for invocation, which is unusually actionable. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to call it, so it is strong but not complete.

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