lichess_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 the three things inspected but says nothing about side effects (whether checking the Lichess connection initiates anything), cost, rate limits, or what the result looks like; for a no-output-schema tool, that leaves the agent guessing at the response shape.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no waste; the enumerated facets (account, credits, connection) are compact and scannable. "Cotlet.dev account" is slightly ambiguous about whether it is the same as the authenticated user, but nothing is padded.

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 trivial zero-parameter status tool, the description covers what is checked but omits the return shape and any note that no annotations exist to convey safety. An agent knows what the tool inspects but not what it will get back or how to act on failure states.

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 there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description introduces no phantom 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?

The description pairs a specific verb ("Check") with concrete resources: the Cotlet.dev account, credits, and the Lichess connection. That is enough to separate it from the sibling tools, which are all interaction commands (open, close, read, click, type), though it never says so explicitly.

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?

Readiness/status checking implies it should run before or when other Lichess actions fail, but the description never states that, nor does it name any alternative or prerequisite. Usage is inferable from the word "ready" rather than stated.

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