openmausbot_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context by specifying what is checked ('discovery' and the daemon) and reinforces the no-state-change behavior, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as latency, failure modes, or whether it requires a running daemon.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys both the action and the no-state-change guarantee without filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the phrasing is immediately scannable.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema, so return-value details do not need to be in the description. Given the number of sibling status tools, the description could more explicitly explain what makes this status check distinct, but the core information needed to invoke it is present.

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 there is no parameter semantics burden. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to explain any input fields.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and concrete resources ('discovery' and 'the live cua-driver daemon'), which clearly indicates the tool's scope. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling status tools like openmausbot_cua_skills_status or openmausbot_cua_permissions_status, but the mention of 'discovery' and 'daemon' provides enough distinction to avoid obvious confusion.

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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over the various sibling status tools. The description implies it is for general status checking, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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