whale_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it reads LOCAL state, reports credential PRESENCE rather than validity, and explicitly disclaims login validation — preventing an agent from over-trusting the result. It does not say anything about cost, side effects, or format, but little more is needed for a read-only status call.

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 sentences with no filler, and the enumeration of reported values comes first. The opening is a verbless fragment ('Local configuration, credential presence and current autonomous window'), which is terse to the point of being slightly clipped, but it is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the three reported items. The 'does not validate login' caveat covers the main misinterpretation risk. Only the shape/format of the returned data is left unspecified, which is a minor gap for a zero-param status tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a 0-parameter tool applies, and the description correctly signals that no input is expected.

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 three concrete things reported: local configuration, credential presence, and the current autonomous window. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, but an agent can still tell exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling whale_session, though the closing caveat hints at the boundary.

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 line 'Does not validate login' implies that login validation belongs to another tool (likely whale_session), which is a useful implicit exclusion. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus whale_session or whale_claim_cycle, so the routing guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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