snaphost_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns a URL 'when running', which is useful context. However, it doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation (though the name/description implies retrieval), whether it blocks/polls, or what it returns when not running. For a status-check tool, some of these gaps are notable, though the 'when running' note earns partial credit.

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, tight sentence that conveys purpose plus the key behavioral note about URLs. Zero wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Nothing extraneous.

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 simple one-parameter status-check tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and the key running-state behavior. It could note edge cases (e.g., what happens for a non-existent deploy_id) and doesn't describe possible status values, but given the tool's low complexity, this is a minor gap rather than a fatal one.

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?

There is only one parameter (deploy_id) with 0% schema description coverage. However, with just one UUID-typed parameter and a clear tool purpose, the meaning is largely self-evident: the ID of the deploy whose status to query. The description 'of a Snaphost deploy' reinforces that the ID refers to a deploy resource. The low schema coverage is acceptable here because the single param's semantics are obvious given the simple tool context.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('status'), and adds the useful parenthetical that it returns the URL when running. It distinguishes itself from siblings: snaphost_deploy (create), snaphost_delete (remove), snaphost_logs (logs), snaphost_list (list). 'Status' clearly maps to a health/state-check operation, distinguishing it well.

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 implies this is used after a deploy to check its state, which is reasonable usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs the sibling tools (e.g., when you'd pick status over logs or list). No exclusions or alternative guidance are named.

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