status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only safety profile, but the description adds useful behavioral context: Tilt readiness includes ready, pending, failures, and enabled, and is null when no Tilt answers. It also advises polling after `up`, though it does not describe error behavior or pagination.

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 front-loads the core purpose, then gives explicit sibling alternatives, then closes with the optional parameter. It is dense with useful information and contains no redundant filler.

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 only one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides enough detail for an agent to understand both when to call the tool and what kind of live state it returns, including Tilt readiness semantics.

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 coverage is 100%, so projectPath is already documented as an absolute path to the project root and the directory from which to run the operation. The description reinforces that project selection is optional, but adds little beyond the schema's existing explanation.

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 gives a specific verb-resource pair: it shows the live state of the stack and enumerates exactly what that includes: stacks, resources, ingress URLs, container ports, stack-level ports, and Tilt readiness. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like resource_list, network_list, and doctor.

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?

It states when to use the tool ('Poll it after `up`') and names explicit alternatives with their selecting conditions: resource_list for project-defined services regardless of running state, network_list for URLs only, and doctor for host checks. This leaves little inference required.

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