circuitry.status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Check connection status' implies a read-only diagnostic operation, but it doesn't specify what information is returned (e.g., connected/disconnected, latency, error details), whether it has side effects, or what authentication/rate limits apply. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what information is returned (e.g., boolean connection state, detailed status object, error conditions). 'Check connection status' is too vague about the return value format. Given the lack of structured output documentation, the description should compensate more.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. This meets expectations for a parameterless 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 the tool's purpose as 'Check connection status to Circuitry', which is a clear verb+object combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'circuitry.connect' or 'circuitry.disconnect' - it's unclear if this is a diagnostic tool versus an action tool. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling context.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'circuitry.connect' and 'circuitry.disconnect', it's unclear if this should be used before attempting connection, after disconnection, or as a general health check. The description offers no usage context or prerequisites.

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