council_status

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares the read-only nature, and the description adds meaningful context: it reports specific environmental checks (Ollama cloud reachability, login states, Grok CLI fail-closed, quota warnings) and portability across clients/install methods. No contradiction detected.

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 two sentences long and densely packed with specific, useful information. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Report the detected environment and current setup') and then enumerates the exact contents. Every clause earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Without an output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it lists the major categories (models, cloud reachability, login status, council members, tiers, concurrency, quota). It is sufficiently complete for a 0-parameter read-only status tool, though it does not detail the exact output format.

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, which the input schema fully reflects. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 because the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate.

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 ('Report') and names the resource ('detected environment and current setup') with a detailed list of contents. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like list_models and configure_council by positioning it as the welcome/status readout.

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 explicitly says to use it as the 'welcome/status readout' and notes it works in every client and install method. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling tools imply the distinction.

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