relay_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It clearly states the tool reports connection details (connected flag, last heartbeat, client_ids). It does not mention side effects, but being a read-only status tool, destructive behavior is unlikely. Could explicitly note it's non-mutating.

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, front-loaded sentence that is concise (19 words) and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: the source ('servonaut.dev'), the target ('local CLI's relay connection'), and the reported fields. It lacks detail on output format but is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose.

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?

No parameters are defined in the input schema, and the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds value by explaining what the tool reports.

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 ('Report') and identifies the resource ('relay connection'), with explicit fields in parentheses. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'relay_reconnect' tool by focusing on status reporting.

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 usage for checking relay status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'relay_reconnect'. No when-not or alternative context is given.

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