quick_ocr_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return values (running/stopped/error) and the performance trade-off (saves tokens). However, it does not specify what causes errors, permissions required, or side effects, but for a simple read-only status check, this is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a return type list. Core information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No wasted text.

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 no parameters and a simple output, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, output format, and usage trade-offs. It references a sibling tool for context and mentions error cases. Output schema existence is noted, but description independently explains the return type.

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 zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks OCR service status and returns either 'running' or 'stopped'. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'check_ocr_status' by being a minimal, token-saving alternative, making the purpose and unique value immediately apparent.

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?

Explicitly recommends using this tool for high-frequency polling scenarios to save tokens, and identifies 'check_ocr_status' as the alternative when more detail is needed. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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