get_prover_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation and auto-detection of container ID, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or what happens if the prover is not running.

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 one short sentence with 12 words, effectively front-loading the purpose. It is concise but could optionally be structured as bullet points for clarity.

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?

With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists what the tool returns (status, metrics, earnings). Given the tool's simplicity, it is fairly complete. Additional details on output structure would be beneficial but are not essential.

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?

Schema description covers the parameter fully. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves 'real-time status, performance metrics, and earnings' of a running prover, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling 'get_prover_metrics' by including status and earnings.

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 description implies this tool is used to get comprehensive prover info, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_prover_metrics' or prerequisites (e.g., prover must be running). No exclusions are mentioned.

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