airstrings_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: keys are returned masked and are removed via the revoke command, and the tool emits a single next-step recommendation. It does not mention auth prerequisites or freshness of the status snapshot, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the returned fields, then usage. It is a dense single paragraph, but every clause maps to a concrete behavior or routing decision; only the key-masking aside borders on incidental detail.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so field by field. For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with routing guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies a parameterless read-and-report call.

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 resource (workspace status) and enumerates exactly what it reports: project, active environment, key scope, per-environment protection, stored (masked) keys, and a suggested next step. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling airstrings_env_list.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('call it first when unsure what to do next or why a write was refused') and an explicit alternative for a narrower need ('for just the environment list, use airstrings_env_list'). Nothing is left to inference.

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