get_polyhaven_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 of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Return' weakly implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of side effects, safety, permissions, error conditions, or the structure of the response. For a status check, this is minimal but lacks essential context about what the tool actually does beyond the literal meaning.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It states the action and resource in a compact manner, which is appropriate for a tool of this simplicity. Every word earns its place.

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 very simple (zero parameters) and has an output schema that likely defines the return format, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, the description lacks any context about the tool's purpose within the larger workflow—e.g., why an agent might check Poly Haven availability before downloading assets. It is minimally complete but not rich enough to guide an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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, and the schema is empty (coverage is trivially 100%). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since there are none. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description correctly adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 clearly states the action (Return) and the resource (availability status for Poly Haven), which distinguishes it from sibling status tools like get_sketchfab_status. However, it does not elaborate on what 'availability status' specifically entails (e.g., online/offline, server health), leaving some ambiguity but still narrowly scoped.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are related tools like get_sketchfab_status and get_geometry_nodes_status, but the description gives no context for choosing this one. It neither states when to use it nor when not to, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the name.

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