artificer-status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses that this is an informational read of several system states and gives useful specifics. However, it does not describe the return format, failure behavior, or whether the call itself has any side effects or costs.

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 tight sentences. The first packs the full scope of the health check into a comma-separated list, and the second delivers the call guidance. No filler words or repeated schema 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?

For a parameterless health check with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It states what is checked and when to call it, which is enough to select and invoke the tool. The only gap is that it doesn't explicitly describe the shape of the returned status report, but that is minor for such a simple tool.

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 zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is no parameter meaning to convey. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist; the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 a specific verb ('Health check') and enumerates the exact resources inspected: API key presence, image model reachability, output directory, and session spend. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling image generation/editing tools without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Call this first on a cold start.' This gives clear usage context. It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the distinct nature of the image-operation siblings makes the exclusion obvious enough.

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