heliograph_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it explains the state enum, the meaning of an empty state, and that 'refused' is not a failure and that the reason names the flag that would permit it. This adds material beyond the schema and prevents misinterpreting a failure-like state.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct state or semantic clarification. It is easy to scan and every sentence 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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter fully documented and no output schema. The description conveys the result vocabulary (one of five states or empty) and explains ambiguous states. It does not describe the exact payload shape, but the state-based output is sufficiently implied.

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 single optional parameter 'estate' is fully documented in the schema, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. With 100% schema description coverage, score 3 is the appropriate baseline even though the description omits param specifics.

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?

Clearly describes a status/state retrieval for a station and enumerates the possible state values, so an agent knows what this tool reports. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but its resource and state vocabulary make the function evident.

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 provides no guidance about when to call this tool rather than a sibling such as heliograph_logs or heliograph_send, and no preconditions or exclusions are given. Usage context must be inferred from the word 'status' and the sibling names.

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