hermes_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool reports configuration and CLI health, which implies a read-only, non-destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the tool performs any checks that could have side effects, how long it might take, or what the output structure looks like. The description adds some behavioral context but not rich detail.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter status tool.

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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what the tool reports. It could mention that the output schema describes the result, but that is already available structurally. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that this is a safe read-only operation, but the description's wording strongly implies it.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool reports (configuration and CLI health), which is the only semantic content an agent needs. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('how this server is configured and whether the Hermes CLI answers'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like hermes_ask, doctor, and gateway_status by focusing on server configuration and CLI health. It could be slightly more explicit about the 'status' nature, but it is clear and not a tautology.

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 a diagnostic/health-check usage context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like doctor or gateway_status. It says what it reports but not when an agent should prefer it over siblings. This is adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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