Check the local Beam collector's status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it meaningfully discloses non-obvious behavior: it only ever binds to 127.0.0.1, never starts/stops/configures anything, and never generates, stores, or exposes credentials. It does not mention what occurs if the collector is down or the exact response format, but the safety profile and operational scope are well-covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose ('Check whether Beam's local collector is running'), then the return summary, then a clear limitation and safety note. Every clause earns its place; no redundancy.

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 description covers what the tool does, what it returns (mode, event count, retention limit), and what it never does. Given there is no output schema, it could be more precise about how the running status is encoded (e.g., a boolean), but the listed return fields give an adequate mental model for a zero-parameter status check.

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?

Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The schema has no properties and the description doesn't need to explain parameters; all it could add is return value detail, which it does. No gap here.

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?

States a specific action ('Check whether Beam's local collector is running') on a distinct resource (the local Beam collector), with the binding to 127.0.0.1 as a clarifying detail that differentiates it from any network-wide status check. The return summary (mode, event count, retention limit) makes the responsibility concrete, and this clearly is distinct from the scan/list sibling tools.

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 explicitly says what it does not do ('Does not start, stop, or configure anything'), giving a clear when-not-to-use clause. It also notes it shares the beam CLI's local credentials, implying when it can be called safely. Although it doesn't name an alternative tool, none of the siblings cover status checks, so 4 is appropriate.

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