status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only except for refreshing the registry cache, that the ping needs no human approval, and that down hosts are reported as 'not running' — a normal result, not an error. This is excellent behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently covers invocation variants, output content, side effects, and error interpretation. Every clause earns its place, and the length is appropriate given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers invocation variants, what is reported for each host, the side effect of cache refresh, and how to interpret down hosts. An agent has enough information to call it correctly without further clarification.

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 schema description already fully explains the `host` parameter and its omission behavior, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description reinforces this but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 states the tool's function: 'Report the status of sudo-proxy daemons' and explicitly notes it does so 'without executing any command', distinguishing it from the execute sibling. The host/no-argument variants further specify the exact resource and scope.

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 usage conditions: with `host` checks one daemon; with no arguments checks the local daemon plus all registry hosts. It also rules out command execution, implicitly steering the agent away from `execute`, though it does not name the sibling alternatives directly.

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