callback_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read-only operation by describing return values and lacks side effects, but does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior or any prerequisites.

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 highly concise: three sentences plus an example. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently covers return details without waste.

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 simple, zero-parameter tool, the description fully covers its behavior (returning a status dict with running state, ports, and counts). The presence of an output schema is implied by the context signals, so the description does not need to elaborate further.

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, and the input schema covers them 100%. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable given the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Get the current status of the callback catcher' and lists specific return values (running state, ports, HTTP and DNS callback counts). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like callback_check or callback_latest by focusing on overall 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?

The description provides clear context for use (checking if listeners are running and viewing callback counts), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like callback_check or callback_latest.

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