client_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects and safety. It states 'Never returns a credential' and hints at live vs. stored data, but the phrase 'A write resolves this one client's credentials' is ambiguous and potentially implies a write action without clear explanation.

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 relatively short but includes confusing phrasing such as 'for the same reason as list_clients' and 'A write resolves this one client's credentials and no other.' These sentences are cryptic and could be simplified for better readability.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not fully explain what the return value looks like beyond mentioning 'connected' and 'stored.' It does not describe behavior when 'check' is false or how errors are handled, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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 schema already provides detailed descriptions for both 'check' and 'client' parameters (100% coverage), so the main description adds little extra value. The parameter descriptions in the schema are clear and self-explanatory, meeting the baseline for well-documented 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 states 'What is known about one client,' which indicates a single-client status retrieval, but it does not use a direct verb like 'get' or 'retrieve.' It mentions 'connected' and 'stored' but leaves the exact output structure vague, making the purpose only moderately clear.

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 references 'list_clients' for comparison but does not clearly explain when to use this tool instead of others like 'check' or 'work_on_client.' It lacks explicit guidance on when a single-client status check is appropriate.

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