get_msty_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool does not read Msty data, suggesting a non-invasive operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, require no permissions, or describe failure modes, leaving some gaps.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a valuable qualifier without unnecessary words. 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?

For a simple zero-parameter status check with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral constraint. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists, and there are no parameters to document.

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 accepts zero parameters, making the schema trivially complete. Per the rubric, zero parameters receive a baseline of 4, and there is nothing meaningful to add in the description regarding parameters.

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 the verb 'Report' and specifies concrete resources: installation, local-service, and readiness state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_capability_manifest or run_compatibility_check, which target different aspects.

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 context about what the tool does and a key qualifier ('without reading Msty data'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The differentiation from siblings is implicit rather than explicit.

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