jensen_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time progress bar' and 'personalized recommendations' which give some behavioral context, but doesn't address critical aspects like whether this tool makes changes to any system, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens when invoked. The description is too vague about actual behavior beyond surface-level 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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, describing its outputs, and providing motivational context. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The motivational quote at the end could be considered slightly extraneous but doesn't significantly detract from the overall efficiency.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (beyond mentioning 'progress bar' and 'recommendations'), doesn't address error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. The motivational statement doesn't add functional completeness. Given the lack of structured data, the description should do more heavy lifting.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how these parameters affect the progress calculation or recommendations. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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: tracking progress toward a specific compute spend goal ($250k/year) with a progress bar and recommendations. It uses specific verbs ('track', 'displays') and identifies the resource (compute utilization). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'consult_the_canon', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'personalized recommendations' but doesn't specify what triggers those recommendations or when this tool should be used instead of the sibling tool. There's no mention of prerequisites, frequency of use, or exclusion criteria.

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