systeme_io_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Check' plus the enumerated subjects (account, credits, connection) reasonably conveys a non-mutating verification, but it says nothing about whether it makes network calls, requires authentication first, or how the pass/fail result is presented. For a zero-parameter read-only probe this is the minimum acceptable, not rich.

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 filler; the purpose and the checked items come first. It is arguably slightly under-specified rather than overly long, which is the right failure mode for a status probe.

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 tool the definition covers what is being checked but not how to interpret a negative result (e.g., what a missing credit balance or a disconnected account means for subsequent calls). No output schema exists, so the description is the only place that information could live, and it is absent.

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 disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The three items named (account, credits, connection) map to the conceptual scope of the check rather than to arguments.

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?

"Check that your Cotlet.dev account and Systeme.io are ready" gives a specific verb (check) plus the two resources being validated, and itemizes the three things verified (account, credits, connection). It is distinguishable from the sibling browser-action tools (click/open/type/read) without opening the schema, though it never uses the word 'status' or 'health check' 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?

The word 'ready' implies a preflight use case, so an agent can infer calling this before other Systeme.io actions, but that is left implicit. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of what to do if a check fails.

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