riverside_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. "Check" implies a non-mutating probe and it discloses what is inspected (account, credits, connection), but it does not say whether it requires authentication, how long it takes, or what a failure looks like.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scoped by the three things checked. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 tool is simple (no params, no nested objects), but with no output schema and no annotations the description should say what the status result looks like or how to interpret a failed check. It identifies what is verified without describing the response.

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 nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is unconditional.

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 uses a specific verb ("Check") plus a concrete set of resources it verifies: account state, credits, and Riverside connection. This contrasts implicitly with siblings like riverside_open or riverside_click, which perform actions, though it never names them directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: a readiness check is naturally run before other Riverside operations, and the mention of credits hints at diagnosing failures. There is no explicit 'call this before X' or 'do not use this to Y' guidance, and no sibling is referenced.

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