get_fluxion_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 so admirably. It discloses that config is read once at startup, that dev and installed copies can have separate .env files, and explains the meaning of config_file_changed_since_start. This is rich behavioral context beyond a simple 'get status'.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with a clear question that summarizes the purpose, then listing the return scope, and closing with a practical usage tip. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what information is returned, highlights a key diagnostic scenario (config not taking effect), and provides necessary background about startup config loading. No critical context is missing.

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 is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter-specific details because none are needed.

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 identifies the tool's function: reporting which Fluxion installation is serving the session and its current state. It enumerates specific details returned (code root, .env, queue/worker state, locks), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on projects, agents, and tasks.

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?

It gives explicit guidance to use when a config change appears ineffective, explaining the startup-only config read. This is clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools.

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