heliograph_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it excels. It explains terminal vs. non-terminal states, the meaning of an empty state, the significance of 'refused' (not a failure), and the warning that 'undelivered' means the run is complete. It also advises on polling unknown states. This is thorough and prevents misinterpreting the output.

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 dense paragraph, but every sentence contributes meaningful information about state interpretation. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently packs edge cases without being verbose. It could be slightly more scannable with bullets, but it remains concise.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains every possible state value and the appropriate agent response for each, including edge cases like 'refused' and 'undelivered'. It does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., a JSON string), but that is implied. For a status-check tool, this is highly complete.

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 only parameter, 'estate', is fully described in the schema with 'Which estate. Optional when only one is configured.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, but none is needed given the schema's completeness.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'What the station is doing now.' It then enumerates the exact set of possible states, which immediately distinguishes this from siblings like heliograph_read_log (logs) and heliograph_send (sending). No ambiguity remains about what the tool returns.

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 gives detailed guidance on how to interpret the returned state, including actions for unknown states ('keep polling') and for 'undelivered' ('waiting for more is exactly wrong'). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it; the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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