view_status

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

With no annotations, the description handles behavioral disclosure. The term 'View' indicates read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or error conditions, though these are likely minimal for a parameterless function.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It leads with the verb 'View' and concisely lists the items visible, followed by a return statement.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema present), the description sufficiently conveys purpose and output. It could mention that it's safe to call anytime, but overall it meets completeness for its complexity level.

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 are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivial. The description adds value by enumerating the content of the view (Uptime, API Credits, etc.), going beyond the empty schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'View' and specifies multiple resources: Uptime, API Credits, stats, inventory, and status effects. It distinguishes this tool from action-oriented siblings (e.g., attack, explore) by being a read-only status viewer.

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 implies use for checking character status but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like examine or explore. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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