get_msty_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It explicitly discloses that it does not read Msty data, which is a strong safety guarantee. However, it does not mention any other behavioral traits like whether it makes network calls or has side effects, though 'Report' implies read-only behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains zero filler words and every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and effective.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers the core function and even adds a safety disclaimer. It is slightly brief for a status tool, but still adequately complete for its simplicity.

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, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The empty schema is fully covered by the description, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. There is no additional meaning needed beyond what the description already conveys.

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 clearly specifies the resource ('installation, local-service, and readiness state'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_capability_manifest and run_compatibility_check by focusing on status rather than manifests or checks.

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 phrase 'without reading Msty data' implies a safe read-only use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. No alternative tools are mentioned, though the context of 'status' suggests it is the go-to for health checks.

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