kernel_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does well by enumerating the exact dict keys returned (running, alive, project_dir, connection_file, python, pending_executions, transport, ip, shell_port, iopub_port) and explicitly noting the no-kernel case returns {'running': False}. This gives the agent a precise understanding of the output format and edge case behavior.

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 efficiently structured: first line states the purpose, second lists the return keys, third covers the edge case. It's front-loaded and each sentence adds value. Slightly more verbose than strictly necessary given the output schema exists, but the explicit key listing and edge-case behavior are genuinely useful.

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?

Despite having a rich output schema and zero complexity (0 params), the description goes beyond minimum requirements by enumerating all returned keys and documenting the no-kernel edge case. The behavior is fully specified for a status query with no side effects. The only minor gap is not explicitly noting this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, though that is fairly inferable from 'status'.

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 and schema coverage is 100% (nothing to document). Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description appropriately spends no space on parameters since there are none, and instead uses that space to document return values, which is more valuable here.

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 it returns the current kernel status, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('kernel status'). It distinguishes from siblings (discover, start, restart, stop, execute) since it's the only query-only status tool. However, the title is null and the verb is generic; the sibling differentiation is implied by the tool name 'status' rather than explicitly stated.

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 this is a read-only status query tool but does not explicitly say when to use it vs the sibling tools like kernel_discover. For a status tool, the usage context is fairly self-evident (check state before/after operations), and the distinction from kernel_discover is somewhat ambiguous since both appear to be query-type operations. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are named.

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