aura_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful operational traits: the counts are 'Free only' and it requires 'no login,' which is genuine auth/scope context. It stops short of describing return structure or rate limits, but for a zero-argument read tool the disclosure is solidly above baseline.

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?

Three tight fragments with no filler, and the substantive content (what it returns) is front-loaded before the 'Start here' call to action. It is efficient, though the telegraphic phrasing is slightly less polished than a fully-formed sentence.

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 no output schema, the description conveys what the agent will get back (health plus free counts across four categories) and the no-login/free constraints. Nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing, though it could say more about the shape of the health/free data.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description's enumeration of what counts are returned adds confirmation but there are no parameters whose semantics need explaining.

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 function ('catalogue health plus free counts') and enumerates the resource categories covered (components, skills, assets, design systems), which clearly separates it from the search/get/install siblings. It stops just short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with those siblings by name.

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?

'Start here' is an explicit directive telling the agent this is the entry point, which is meaningful ordering guidance among 15 siblings. It does not, however, name any alternative or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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