late_infer_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 discloses key behavioral traits: it does not start a process, it defaults to a specific URL, and it rejects non-loopback URLs. This covers the main safety-relevant behaviors for a probe tool, though it does not describe the exact response or failure modes.

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 short sentences with no filler. The default URL is front-loaded, the non-start behavior is stated directly, and the loopback restriction is clear. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema probe tool, the description provides the essential invocation context: target, default, side-effect absence, and URL restriction. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning what a successful probe returns or how failures surface, but for a simple status probe this is a minor gap.

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 schema already documents base_url and its loopback requirement with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the actual default URL (http://127.0.0.1:8010/v1) and emphasizing that non-loopback URLs are rejected, reinforcing the schema constraint with practical context.

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 states a specific action ('Probe') and resource ('loopback late-infer'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from process-starting tools with 'Does not start a process.' Combined with the tool name late_infer_status, an agent can clearly identify this as a status-check operation rather than a lifecycle operation.

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 gives useful context: it is a probe, does not start a process, and only accepts loopback URLs. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling status tools (e.g., llamacpp_status, ollama_status, vllm_status) or mention typical usage such as checking readiness before using start_late_infer. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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