q_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a read-only check of installation and configuration, but it does not describe what the status output looks like, how failures are reported, or whether any side effects occur. This is adequate for a simple status tool but leaves important behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a no-argument status check.

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 tool itself is simple to invoke (no parameters, no output schema), but the description does not explain what constitutes 'status' or how the returned information should be interpreted. This is a minor completeness gap given that the agent may need to know whether the result is a health summary, version info, or an error message.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description adds nothing contradictory or incomplete regarding parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the exact object ('Amazon Q CLI installation and configuration status'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from its siblings (ask_q, take_q, q_translate, fetch_chunk), which describe other actions.

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 the tool should be used to verify that the Amazon Q CLI is installed and configured, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over sibling tools or mention any prerequisites. There is no guidance on when not to use it, leaving usage largely to inference.

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