studio_status

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

With no annotations, the description details behavior: status returns artifacts with statuses, rename modifies title, list_types shows supported types. It covers pagination and include_details impact. It does not mention auth or rate limits but is sufficient for safe usage.

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 lengthy but well-organized with bullet points and sections for actions, parameters, and return values. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids redundancy. Minor improvements could trim some detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 3 actions, pagination, return structure), the description is comprehensive. It documents the output dictionary with fields and details, compensating for the lack of an output schema. No gaps are apparent.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role, dependencies (e.g., artifact_id required for rename), defaults, and constraints (e.g., limit 1-100). It provides critical semantic 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: 'Check studio content generation status and get URLs, or rename an artifact.' It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing from sibling tools like studio_create and studio_revise.

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 outlines three actions (status, rename, list_types) with clear conditions for each. It doesn't explicitly compare to siblings, but the actions are self-contained and context is implied via sibling tool names.

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