studio_check_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the two conditions being checked and the follow-up action (instructing the agent to open the URL), which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about the return values or error behavior.

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 tight sentences with no waste. The core check is front-loaded and the remediation follows immediately, so 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?

Zero parameters and no output schema, so the description is the only source of truth. It adequately explains what is checked and the remediation step, but omits any indication of the result format (e.g., connected vs. not) that an agent would want before branching on the outcome.

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 the schema provides nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter syntax or meaning that the description needs to compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: checking whether Tuval Studio is open and connected to the WebSocket bridge, which is precise about what is being checked. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like studio_get_view or design_audit_layout, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides a conditional remediation directive (open the editor URL if not connected), which implies a pre-flight/connection-verification usage. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites or when-not-to-use context.

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