firefighter_status

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

Beyond the read-only annotations, it discloses the important behavior that pricing does not enqueue a job. It also sets expectations for a short, multi-section response, though operational details such as pricing freshness or data scope are not covered.

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 compact sentences front-load the status purpose and then introduce the optional pricing behavior without procedural filler. The telegraphic phrasing is efficient, but fragments such as "the human" and "do:" sacrifice some readability.

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?

An agent can make a basic status call or request a non-queuing quote, and the description supplies some output expectations despite the lack of an output schema. However, opaque output terminology, incomplete parameter interactions, and no explicit sibling routing leave notable 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?

Although the schema already describes all four parameters, the description adds the useful interaction that minutes, optionally with gpu, enables a pricing mode without submission. It does not similarly explain how project or vram_gb affect the status result or quote.

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 identifies two clear functions: a brief overview of the shared machine and an optional job-price estimate. It lists useful status contents and distinguishes pricing from queuing, although cryptic terms such as "the human" and "do:" reduce precision.

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?

It gives clear context for a basic status call and explicitly explains when to supply minutes and gpu for pricing. The phrase "without queuing it" helps distinguish this from submission, but it does not name sibling tools or explain when to prefer firefighter_job or firefighter_plan.

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