imagegen_status

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnlyHint=true, and the description matches by saying it 'Mostra' rather than mutates. It adds a specific behavioral reassurance that the optional probe does not generate an image, which is useful beyond the boolean parameter name. No contradictions.

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose before adding a caveat. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple, one-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the operation, the main returned categories (backend, limits, output), and the key probe caveat. It is slightly vague about the shape/format of the returned output, but this is a minor gap for a status tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of run_non_consuming_probe. It refers to an 'optional probe' that does not generate an image, but it doesn't explain what enabling the probe actually does or how true/false changes the status call, leaving the agent to infer the semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mostra') and names the status resource ('backend, limites e saída'), making it clear this is a read-only status/health tool rather than an image-generation action. It further differentiates from generate_image/edit_image by stating the probe does not generate an image, though it does not explicitly distinguish from codex_account_status.

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 conveys the tool's context as a status check and includes a useful exclusion ('o probe opcional não gera imagem'), so an agent should not use it for generation. However, it never names sibling tools or states when to choose it over codex_account_status, leaving routing mostly implicit.

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