palace_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral output (job/CPU/RAM state, case progress, start eligibility), which is more than nothing, but it omits permission requirements, whether it mutates state, and any rate or cost considerations for a status probe.

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?

A single dense sentence with the most actionable content ('whether a run may start') placed last but still compact. It avoids filler, though the semicolon-separated fragment list is slightly run-on.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description does some of the work of explaining return content, and it covers the main status dimensions. It falls short on parameter documentation and on distinguishing itself from closely related sibling diagnostics.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does: 'ranks' and the case folder are given meaning, but 'distro' and 'backend' are never mentioned. Half the parameters remain completely opaque to the agent.

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 the concrete resources it reports on: running jobs, CPU/RAM availability on the Palace host, case-folder progress, and whether a run with a given 'ranks' value can start. That is specific enough for an agent to know what the tool returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like palace_check or palace_doctor, which could plausibly overlap.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named. The phrase 'whether a run with ranks may start now' hints at a pre-run gating use case, but the agent must infer that this is the right tool versus palace_check or palace_doctor.

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