martin_arcade_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is side-effect-free ('without changing run state'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose prerequisites, authorization needs, staleness semantics, or what 'authoritative evidence' means in practical terms.

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 a single concise sentence that leads with the action and resource, then states the critical non-mutating behavior. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing.

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, no parameter documentation, no usage guidance, and no detail about what evidence is returned, the description leaves important gaps. It conveys the core read-only intent but is not sufficient for an agent to know how to invoke it correctly or interpret the result.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the loopId parameter at all. The description must compensate for the missing schema documentation but fails to explain whether loopId is required, what it references, or how it affects the result.

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 a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('authoritative MartinLoop evidence for the Arcade view'), and explicitly states it does not alter run state. This differentiates it from run-creating and mutating siblings, though it does not directly name the sibling alternatives.

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 gives only an implied purpose: reading Arcade-view evidence. It provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over closely related siblings such as martin_status, martin_arcade, or martin_inspect, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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