log_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a benign, side-effect-free UI display operation for real-time user feedback, which is the key behavioral fact. It does not state a return value or whether the message is retained, but for a status-bar write that omission is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in one sentence, followed by usage guidance, examples, and a compact Args block. Every line earns its place with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema, annotation-free tool, the description covers purpose, timing, examples, and both parameters. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation, though a note on whether messages persist or how they surface would fully close the loop.

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, and it does: it explains that message should be short and human-readable and enumerates the valid severity values (message/important/warning/error) that the schema itself leaves as a bare string. This adds real meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (Display) and resource (status message in Houdini's status bar), which is unambiguous and distinct from all the read/compute siblings in the list. An agent can immediately tell this is the user-feedback/logging primitive.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call it at the START of every major step, and gives four concrete example messages that illustrate the exact granularity expected. This is unusually prescriptive when/when-to-use guidance rather than vague context.

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