chatgpt_get_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It enumerates the exact fields returned, which is transparent. However, it does not mention side effects, potential errors, or behavior when automation is not initialized. The explicit list of return fields adds value beyond the empty schema.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence lists all key status elements. No fluff, no redundancy, and the information is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 status getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return contents. It lacks error-handling or 'not available' cases, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which is appropriate. No compensation needed.

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 purpose: to get the current status of ChatGPT Web automation. It lists specific aspects (initialized, logged in, active profile, extension bridge, conversation URL, title, model), making it distinct from sibling tools like chatgpt_ask or chatgpt_new_chat, which perform actions.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, but its purpose is self-evident as a status-checking tool. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, though the context implies it's for pre-flight checks or diagnostics.

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