bantamkit status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantially beyond them: no arguments, writes nothing, never echoes another call's arguments, and every fact is observed at call time with no heartbeat or cached verdict. It also discloses the degraded-path behavior (full conditions plus remediation), which is not derivable from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the question it answers and the return shape, then triggers, then guarantees, then alternatives — a sensible order with no filler. The middle sentence is long and clause-stacked, which slightly hurts scanability, but every clause carries real 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?

Covers the return format, the degraded case and remediation, purity guarantees, and sibling disambiguation — everything an agent needs to decide and call correctly, so nothing further is required of it.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the schema is trivially complete. The description reinforces this by stating 'takes no arguments,' which is consistent and mildly useful but adds no semantics beyond the empty schema.

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?

Opens with a direct question the tool answers ('Is bantamkit working, and which bantamkit?') and immediately specifies the exact returned form (`bantamkit Active 🟢` first line, version, build_id, surfaces, memory store, event log). It explicitly contrasts itself with build_identity (build_id only) and shiftwork_status (a job, not the server), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives three concrete trigger conditions: the user asks whether the server is alive, a bantamkit tool answered oddly and the server may be the cause, or a reply carries a `bantamkit degraded` footer. It also names the alternatives and when to prefer them (build_identity for fingerprint comparison, shiftwork_status for jobs), leaving nothing to inference.

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