interceptor_status

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It correctly states the tool returns status and details of targets but does not disclose potential error conditions (e.g., invalid interceptor_id) or any side effects (likely none). Adequate but lacks depth.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action and output. Could include more detail without being overly long, but current length is efficient.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and single parameter, the description provides a basic understanding but could be more specific about what 'detailed status' includes or hint at the structure of the response. It is marginally adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the parameter name and examples provided in the schema. The description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond what is in the schema.

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 states the verb 'Get', the resource 'detailed status of a specific interceptor', and scope 'including all active targets and their details'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like interceptor_list (which likely lists interceptors) by focusing on a single interceptor's status.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., interceptor_list for listing all interceptors, or other interceptor-specific tools). It does not mention prerequisites or avoid cases.

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