internal_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it is read-only ('Read-only; does NOT trigger TCC prompt'), explains null conditions for fields like lastSync, and details side-effect free nature. No contradictions.

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 long but well-structured, explaining each returned field systematically. Every sentence provides value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Read-only; no side effects' repeated). Still, it remains focused and informative.

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 no output schema, the description comprehensively documents every field, including null states, data sources, and examples. It covers all necessary context for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning as there are none.

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 explicitly states it returns a health snapshot of the server, and distinguishes from siblings by instructing not to use it for OmniFocus data, pointing to specific alternatives like task_list, project_list, sync_status.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Do NOT use this to read OmniFocus data — prefer task_list, project_list, sync_status, etc.' and mentions omnifocus_doctor for live checks, clearly indicating when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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