gaihen_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only inspection but never states that it is non-mutating, what permissions/auth it needs, or how the output is shaped — for a status endpoint this is thin but not misleading.

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 dense fragment that front-loads the subject ('Bridge status') followed by a colon-delimited list of reported items. No filler, though the fragmentary style is terse rather than polished.

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 usefully enumerates the three things the status returns, which partially compensates. However, it leaves the single input parameter undefined and gives no usage context, so an agent still lacks what it needs to invoke it confidently.

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 is one optional 'exchange' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what it does. The phrase 'exchange folder' only loosely hints that the parameter might filter or target a folder; format, defaults, and behavior remain undocumented in both schema and text.

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 resource (the bridge status) and enumerates exactly what it reports: exchange folder, pending jobs from Jw_cad, and unconsumed responses. That is specific enough for an agent to know it is an overview/status tool, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from the closely related sibling gaihen_jobs.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Given the crowded gaihen_* family (gaihen_jobs, gaihen_read, gaihen_preview), it is unclear when an agent should call gaihen_status instead of gaihen_jobs to inspect pending jobs.

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