get_maintenance_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires special permissions. The name 'get' implies reading, but the description fails to explicitly confirm safety or side effects. The transparency is insufficient.

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 very concise (one short phrase) but lacks clarity due to the ambiguous 'redacted' qualifier. It is not verbose, but the brevity sacrifices usefulness. An average score reflects that it is neither overly long nor optimally clear.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description should provide more context about what 'reviewed' means and how the output is structured. The current text is too minimal to fully understand the tool's role in the maintenance workflow.

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 input schema covers the only parameter ('limit') with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since no further value is provided.

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 states 'List redacted reviewed maintenance status records', which indicates a read operation on a specific resource. However, the term 'redacted' is confusing and likely a placeholder, and the description does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_migration_status. The purpose is moderately clear but lacks precision.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_maintenance_plan or apply_maintenance_plan. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. The description simply states the action without any usage direction.

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