statusbar-report

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states it 'reports' and mentions 'context and scene statistics', which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects or clarify what happens when invoked. It also doesn't describe the output format. Given zero annotations, this is inadequate.

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 sentence, very concise, and front-loaded with the verb. It wastes no words. However, it could be more informative without being verbose, so it's not perfect, but it's appropriately sized for a simple report tool.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is expected to provide more context about what the report contains. It says 'scene statistics', which is vague. It should clarify what statistics are included (e.g., object counts, memory usage) and what format the output takes. For a reporting tool with no structured output, this is insufficient.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (meaning there are no parameters to fail coverage). Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to explain any, and a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no param info, but that's fine because there's nothing to explain.

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 'Report Status Bar context and scene statistics' clearly states the tool's action (report) and resource (Status Bar context and scene statistics). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'topbar-report' and 'particles-report' by specifying the Status Bar context and scene statistics, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. It's a bit vague on what 'scene statistics' includes, but it's specific enough for a basic understanding.

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 doesn't provide any explicit context about when to use this tool versus other reporting tools like 'scene-info' or 'context-info'. It implies it's for retrieving Status Bar and scene statistics, but there's no mention of when it's appropriate or when other tools might be better. The lack of any guidelines is a clear gap.

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