chatgpt_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description then adds the non-obvious behavioral guarantee that the call does not consume generation/quota ("without generating content"), which is exactly the extra context an agent needs before using it as a cheap pre-flight check.

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 front-loaded sentence: verb first, then the list of coverage areas, then the differentiator. Nothing redundant.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so at the category level (login state, models, usage limits, bridge setup). A hint about the response shape or what a failure means would push this to a 5.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a call with no arguments and enumerates the status areas being probed, leaving no ambiguity about inputs.

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 ("Check") and enumerates the exact resources it reports on: subscription login, available text models, usage limits, bridge setup. The phrase "without generating content" separates it from the generation siblings (chatgpt_ask, chatgpt_generate_image) without needing the 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?

The description clearly frames a diagnostic/read-only context ("without generating content"), which tells an agent this is the non-consuming probe to run before or instead of generation calls. It stops short of explicitly routing among siblings, e.g. not saying to use chatgpt_login when this reports a logged-out state.

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