yaaif_skill_runtime_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether special permissions are required, or what 'in-memory' means (e.g., ephemeral, not persisted). It also does not describe what the returned status will look like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does. There is zero wasted text.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but not fully complete. It lacks details about what the 'status' encompasses (e.g., version, health, loaded modules, memory usage), what the response structure is, and when it should be called relative to related runtime tools like yaaif_skill_runtime_reload. More context would help an agent decide correctly, though the simplicity of a getter with no params raises the baseline.

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 description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. The 100% schema coverage for an empty property set means the description's lack of parameter details is not a deficiency. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('in-memory skill runtime status') with a tenant scope. This distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like yaaif_skill_runtime_reload and other status tools focused on different resources (e.g., yaaif_mcp_deployment_status). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it misses the full 'distinguishes from siblings' bar.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yaaif_skill_runtime_reload or other status-checking tools. The description simply states what it does without providing any selection criteria or exclusions.

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