galbook_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does not state that this is a non-mutating read, whether calling it advances or alters the story, or how the server-side default book/agent fallback behaves when parameters are omitted.

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?

Two short fragments, front-loaded with the content most likely needed. The Chinese half is a near-duplicate of the English rather than added information, a minor redundancy but not damaging.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is roughly adequate, and the description does sketch the return contents since no output schema exists. However, without annotations it should still say the call is read-only and safe to poll, which it omits.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the optional-default semantics. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the resource it returns — current story position, pending choice, recent lines — which is more than a label restatement. But it uses no verb ('where am I') and does not distinguish itself from near neighbors such as galbook_log or galbook_profile, so an agent must infer that this is the lightweight state read.

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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to guess whether to call this versus galbook_log before answering a 'where am I' question, or after galbook_load to confirm state.

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