studio_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait that this is non-destructive and does not modify a document. However, 'probe native hosts' leaves open what a probe entails (connection attempts, latency, failure behavior when no host is available) and whether repeated calls have side effects.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the two actions (probe, list) before the non-mutation constraint. It is slightly dense with undefined jargon ('native hosts'), but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 simple (no params) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the core purpose and the read-only property. Still missing is any statement of prerequisites (e.g., that a host must be reachable) or what 'action names' are used for, which matters for a discovery step that gates the other studio_* tools.

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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no misleading parameter hints.

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 states specific verbs and resources: 'probe native hosts' and 'list available action names', which meaningfully expands on the opaque name 'studio_status'. It also carves out a non-mutating scope ('without editing a document'), though it never names a sibling such as studio_list_artifacts or studio_plan_environment to sharpen the boundary.

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 phrase 'without editing a document' suggests this is a safe pre-flight/discovery call before studio_execute_action or studio_create_job, but the description never says 'use this when...' or excludes an alternative. An agent must infer the sequencing itself.

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