udemy_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the three areas inspected (account, credits, connection), which frames this as a read-only diagnostic. It does not state whether the call can fail, cost credits, require authentication, or what the result looks like — a real gap given there is no output schema.

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 with no filler, and the enumerated check items are easy to scan. The phrasing "Check that your Cotlet.dev account and Udemy are ready" is slightly awkward, mixing the credential owner with the service being connected.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description should convey what the agent learns from the response. It names the checked dimensions but not the shape of the result (status flags, error text, remediation guidance), so an agent cannot predict the outcome format.

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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The three named check domains add a little orientation without implying any input is needed.

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 a concrete resource set: Cotlet.dev account, credits, and the Udemy connection. This clearly separates it from siblings like udemy_open, udemy_click, and udemy_type, which are browser actions, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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: the word "ready" suggests a preflight check before invoking the other udemy_* tools, but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or which sibling to use instead if it fails. The agent must infer the workflow position itself.

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