laya_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Report" implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, which is useful, but it says nothing about whether the call is expensive, whether it may block on a loading service, or whether the service must be initialized first.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, hedging, or restatement of the tool name. Every word contributes to defining the scope of the report.

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 zero-parameter status tool and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The only residual gap is that "checkpoints" is left undefined — the agent cannot tell whether these are model weights, saved training states, or load checkpoints at a remote endpoint.

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 an empty object, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing argument details.

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?

"Report the checkpoints currently loaded by the Laya service" pairs a specific verb (report) with a specific resource (loaded checkpoints) and a scoped owner (the Laya service). It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling laya_predict, so the agent must infer that this is the diagnostic read rather than the inference path.

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 word "status" and "currently loaded" suggest a health/inspection query before or alongside prediction calls. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus laya_predict, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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