firestarter_status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description explains the test vs live mode behavior in detail, including how fs_test_ and fs_live_ API keys differ and that the mode is fixed by the key. It also clarifies that test mode uses a sandbox with no real money or seller contact. This is substantial behavioral context that the annotations do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and use cases, followed by a detailed explanation of test mode. While the test mode section is somewhat verbose and there is minor repetition (e.g., environment mentioned twice), every sentence provides useful information. The structure is logical and mostly concise, though not maximally tight.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a status-check tool with no required parameters and no output schema. It covers multiple functions (status, listing, environment, account) and explains the test mode. However, it does not mention limits on recent executions, pagination, or the meaning of status_filter values (though the schema covers the latter). Given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete but leaves a few minor gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds only the no-arguments behavior for an environment/account summary, and lightly hints at status values, but it does not add significant additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool checks Firestarter execution status, lists recent executions, and reports environment (test vs live) plus account info. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from siblings by including the environment/account summary feature. The instruction to call with no arguments for a summary further clarifies its unique purpose.

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 enumerates multiple use cases: checking orders, viewing found options, getting tracking updates, confirming test/sandbox mode, and identifying the account. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like firestarter_track_order. Thus it lacks explicit exclusions, scoring a 4.

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