raid_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits on its own. It indicates a read-only 'snapshot' operation, implying no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify state or mention any authentication/rate-limit considerations. The core behavior is transparent enough, but not fully explicit.

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 succinct and well-structured, using a compact list of status checks in a single sentence. It contains no redundant information and is easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and the kind of information it returns (state indicators). Since there is an output schema, the description does not need to specify return values. It is complete for a simple status-check 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; the schema coverage is 100% (nothing to miss). Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline score of 4 applies, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool's function as a status snapshot, listing specific checks (connected, turn pending, game over, error). It is distinct from sibling tools like raid_play or raid_connect, which perform actions, whereas this tool is purely informational.

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 explicitly mentions when it is useful ('to re-orient after a gap in the conversation'), providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous, so the guidance is sufficient.

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