td_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose safety and side-effect information. It implies a non-mutating status check but does not explicitly state it is read-only, what it returns, or behavior on failure. This is a significant gap for a status tool.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the tool's identity and then a directive. Every word earns its place.

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 the zero-parameter design and presence of an output schema, the description adequately sets context for use ('call first'). It could be slightly more explicit about what it returns, but the output schema presumably covers that. The sibling context is partly addressed by the 'first' instruction.

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. The description doesn't need to clarify parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. It provides no misleading information.

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 a status checker for the TD bridge, with an explicit instruction to call it first. It distinguishes itself from siblings like td_connect by positioning itself as the initial verification step. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'check' or 'verify', making it slightly less direct.

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 instruction 'Call first' provides clear timing for usage, indicating this should precede other TD operations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'first' directive effectively establishes its role as a prerequisite.

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