gauntlet_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: that failing models get paused (so the report reflects evolving state) and that credentials are never returned. It still does not state whether the tool is read-only or requires any auth, but for a zero-parameter status probe the disclosure is substantive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the report contents and closed with the caller condition and the credential guarantee. No filler and every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and its four-part enumeration does that adequately for a no-argument status tool. It could be tighter on when the paused/limit state applies, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The enumeration of report contents is a bonus rather than a compensation for missing parameter documentation.

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 enumerates precisely what the tool surfaces: installed/signed-in CLIs, per-tier model assignment, paused models, and active limits. That is a concrete, specific purpose rather than a restatement of the name. It stops short of 5 because there is no explicit verb and no differentiation from the nearest sibling, quick_check, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

'Call it after a failed call' gives a clear triggering condition rather than leaving usage to inference. It does not name an alternative or state when not to call it (e.g., quick_check for a cheap pre-flight), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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