log_status

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

The description explains the tool's behavior (displaying a status message) and provides severity levels, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like whether it blocks execution, how long messages persist, or if it requires an active Houdini session. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden but doesn't fully disclose all behavioral aspects.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidance and parameter details in a clear, scannable format. 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?

For a simple logging tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage timing, examples, and parameter semantics. The only minor gap is not specifying whether the tool returns anything or if there are side effects beyond displaying the message.

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 compensate. It does this well by explaining the 'message' parameter (status message to display, keep it short and human-readable) and the 'severity' parameter with its allowed values and default. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: displaying a status message in Houdini's status bar. It uses a specific verb ('Display') and resource ('status bar'), and provides concrete examples of when to use it, making it easy to distinguish from other tools.

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 explicitly instructs to call this at the START of every major step, providing clear usage context. It also gives examples of appropriate messages, which helps the agent understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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