martin_status

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), which lowers the burden on the description. The word 'current' adds a minimal behavioral hint that this is a live snapshot of the record, not a computed estimate or historical review, but it doesn't clarify whether costs are read from the record or calculated on the fly. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact sentence with the verb and object front-loaded and zero filler. Every word earns its place, though the brevity does shift some burden to the schema.

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?

The presence of an output schema and safety annotations means the description need not explain return values or the read-only nature. The combination of a fully documented input schema plus the description is enough to invoke the tool correctly; the only real gap is the lack of relation to overloaded-sibling tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; each of the five parameters (file, latest, loopId, runsDir, loopJson) already has a clear description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level guidance, such as which of the four oneOf inputs to prefer or how they interact with runsDir.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a concrete resource ('a Martin loop record') and a well-scoped object ('current budget and cost state'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as martin_get_run or martin_inspect, which likely also retrieve loop-record data, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and names no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent is left to infer when a status check is appropriate compared with martin_get_run, martin_inspect, or martin_arcade_status.

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