baasix_realtime_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool 'returns information about' a set of status details, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly disclose whether the status is fetched live, requires authentication, or could fail under certain replication states. The described behavior is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 compact and well-structured: an opening sentence states the primary purpose, followed by a focused bullet list of exactly what is returned. Every bullet adds meaningful detail, and there is no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter status 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 provides a sufficiently complete picture of the returned information by enumerating the major categories. It does not specify the exact response format or data types, but the bullet list gives an agent enough context to understand what the tool offers. Slight additional detail about response shape would make it fully complete.

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 input schema reflects that perfectly with an empty properties object. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on return values rather than input semantics.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving realtime service status with specific bullet points about WAL configuration, replication slots, publications, and enabled collections. The verb 'Get' and resource 'status of the realtime service' are specific. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like baasix_realtime_config or baasix_realtime_collections, but the status-focused phrasing is largely unambiguous.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as baasix_realtime_config, baasix_realtime_collections, or baasix_realtime_enable/disable. There are no exclusions, preconditions, or contextual hints beyond the inference that a user wants status information. This leaves the agent to determine the appropriate selection on its own.

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