ipt_get_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 provides useful context by listing what the status report contains, which helps an agent anticipate the response. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling for nonexistent resources, or authentication prerequisites.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Status of a resource') and then list the key report categories. Every part earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the main dimensions of the status response. It is arguably missing a few format details about how 'problems' or 'published/next version' are represented, but it provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single 'shortname' parameter is already documented in the schema with a pattern and description. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the resource and enumerates the exact facets reported: visibility, sources, mappings, metadata validity, problems, and publication versions. It is easy to tell this is a status/getter tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as ipt_get_publication_status or ipt_get_mapping.

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 implies usage: call this when you need an overall status summary of a resource. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like ipt_validate_resource or ipt_get_publication_status, nor any exclusions for more targeted checks.

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