grove_fleet_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, which cover the main behavioral aspects. The description adds that it returns rows and lists fields, but does not disclose additional behavior such as error handling, pagination, or side effects. Since the annotations cover the primary traits, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise, using a single sentence plus a list of fields. It is straightforward and avoids unnecessary verbosity. The structure is simple and readable, though the field list embedded in a sentence could be more formally organized.

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 provides the return fields but lacks parameter explanations and any mention of output schema (though an output schema is indicated to exist). Without parameter semantics, the tool is not fully usable. The presence of many sibling tools with similar purposes also requires more contextual clarity, but the description does not address this.

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?

Neither the description nor the input schema explains the parameters 'limit' and 'app_id.' The schema lacks any descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not mention them. Users have no guidance on what these parameters control or how to use them.

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 indicates the tool returns fleet status rows and explains the content (presence and agent activity). It lists the fields in each row, making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'returns' or 'gets'), though this is implied.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., grove_agents, fleet_status). No comparison or selection criteria are given. The only hint is 'Requires grove_read,' which is a permission note, not usage direction.

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