council_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to state safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: it reports detection results, mentions that Grok CLI is 'fail-closed', and notes universal compatibility across clients and install methods. This is valuable and non-redundant context, justifying a 4.

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, with the main verb and purpose in the first phrase. Every following item is a concrete detail that adds value, and no information is redundant or wasted. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and appropriately sized for a status readout tool.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the full scope of what the tool reports and explicitly states its universal compatibility. It does not need to explain return values or parameters, and it does not omit any obvious aspect that an agent would need to decide to invoke it.

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 and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description therefore has no parameter burden to carry. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to explain or document parameters, making this score 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 resource ('detected environment and current setup'), then enumerates concrete items it covers (Ollama models, cloud reachability, login states, Grok CLI, council members, tiers, concurrency, quota). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_models or get_council_config, which are more targeted.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this as the welcome/status readout — it works in every client and install method.' This tells when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for specific checks. Since the context is clear and the instruction is direct, it earns a 4.

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