Живое состояние бота

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this reflects a 'live runtime' with uptime/updates/errors, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about freshness, auth needs, or what happens when a bot is offline.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the returned facets are front-loaded. It is perhaps overly terse for a tool with an undocumented default-case fallback, but nothing is wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description does useful work by naming the returned fields (uptime, updates, errors, check time). However it omits usage context and any indication of refresh semantics or failure states, leaving gaps for an operational-status tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with only two parameters (bot, case), and the schema already explains the default-case fallback behavior in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource and enumerates the returned runtime facets (uptime, updates, errors, check time), so an agent knows this returns live operational state. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like bots_get or bots_journal, which also surface bot state, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus bots_get, bots_journal, or bots_webhook_check, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer the use case from the field list alone.

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