get_bot_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states a read operation ('get') but does not disclose whether authentication is required, if there are any side effects, rate limits, or limitations. The minimal description provides insufficient behavioral insights for an agent.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word is informative and no repetition or fluff exists.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description should elaborate on the return value (e.g., fields like running state, last activity). It does not, leaving the agent unaware of what 'status and performance' entails, which is a notable gap.

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 single parameter 'id' with description 'Bot ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond this, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No additional param explanation is needed.

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 'Get detailed status and performance for a specific bot' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (status and performance for a specific bot), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_bots or deploy_bot. However, it lacks specificity on what 'detailed status' includes, such as health metrics or running state.

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 usage context is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_bots (which might provide an overview) or other status-checking tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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