autoflow_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a non-mutating status check, which is helpful, but it does not describe what the status result looks like (e.g., connected/disconnected values, payload shape) or whether it actively pings the extension.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the verb, object, and scope with no filler or repeated schema information.

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 parameterless status-check tool, the description is sufficient for an agent to know when and why to invoke it. The only gap is the lack of guidance about the returned status representation, and there is no output schema to cover that.

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, so 100% schema coverage is vacuously true and there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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?

Description names a specific action ('Check'), a clear object ('connection status'), and a scope ('Autoflow Chrome Extension and Google Flow tab'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which all refer to operations on assets, queues, flows, or screenshots rather than a status probe.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need to verify connectivity of the extension or Google Flow tab before other Autoflow actions. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison to the listed sibling tools.

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