guardian_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It clearly indicates the tool performs a read operation (returns data) with no stated side effects. It lacks details on authentication or rate limits, but for a simple read-only status check, the information given is sufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and resource. It is concise with no wasted words, covering the essential information efficiently.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a complete overview of what the tool returns and its purpose. No additional information is needed for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The baseline is 4, and the description adds value by detailing the output fields, which compensates for the lack of parameter information.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('security posture of the sovereign infrastructure'), and lists the exact return values (health score, listening port count, etc.). It clearly distinguishes this status check from sibling tools like guardian_alerts or guardian_audit.

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?

The description implies the tool is used to check overall security posture, which is clear from the purpose. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. For a zero-parameter read tool, this is acceptable but could be slightly improved.

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