status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden alone. It implies a read-only diagnostic call and enumerates the returned facts, but says nothing about cost, latency, whether it starts or contacts a kernel, or what happens if no kernel is running — meaningful gaps for a status tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that maps directly onto the tool's purpose with no padding. It loses a point for the typo ('eh') and slightly clipped phrasing that reads as rough rather than precise.

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?

With no output schema, annotations, or parameters, the description is the only source of truth about results, and its field list ('cells run', 'instance', 'project', 'connection') is only indicative — types, units, and format are undefined. Adequate for a zero-arg status call, but it leaves the return shape underspecified.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument invocation and adds nothing misleading about inputs.

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 (Report) and resource (kernel status) and enumerates the fields returned: cells run, instance, project, connection. The agent can distinguish it from siblings like reset, launch, or run without opening the schema, though the description never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as `instances` (which plausibly also reports instance information) or `reset`. The intent to check current kernel state is only inferable from the verb 'Report', and no preconditions or exclusions are given.

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