monitor_render

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it runs on the bridge side without requiring a Houdini connection. It also explains the optional output_path parameter triggers file existence and size reporting, which adds transparency about the tool's behavior and capabilities.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the core purpose; the second adds the optional parameter behavior and the important context of bridge-side execution. No redundancy or filler.

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 simple status-check tool, the description covers the core functionality, the optional parameter, and the architectural context (bridge-side, no Houdini connection). However, it does not specify the return value format (e.g., boolean or status object), and with no output schema, this is a noticeable gap. Still, the tool is simple enough that the description is largely sufficient.

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 only parameter, output_path, receives meaningful explanation beyond the raw schema. The description states it is optional and that passing it will additionally report file existence and size, fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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's function: checking if Karma (husk) or Mantra (mantra-bin) renders are still running. It names specific engines and explicitly mentions the optional output_path behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_render or get_render_progress.

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 specifies when to use the tool (to check render status) and adds valuable context that no Houdini connection is needed because it runs on the bridge side. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the clear purpose implies the intended context.

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