image_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered; the description's "Read-only, and safe to call at any time" partly restates that. It does add genuine behavioral value by enumerating the specific conditions probed, telling the agent what a pass/fail actually depends on.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is checked and followed by the usage trigger. The enumerated checks are load-bearing (they define the diagnosis) rather than padding, so every clause earns its place.

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, the description carries the burden of describing what is returned, and it does so by naming the four status conditions. It stops short of describing the return shape (booleans vs. a status string), a small remaining gap for a notification-free diagnostic tool.

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 and there is no parameter semantics to compensate for. The description correctly describes a no-argument probe rather than implying any configurable 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?

Specific verb ("Report") plus the exact resource and scope: whether image generation is usable, enumerated as debug port, Chat mode, composer presence, and open conversation. This clearly separates it from the sibling generate_image, which performs the generation rather than checking readiness.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it: to diagnose a generate_image failure, or before the first generation of a session, and explicitly frames it as preferable to guessing at the cause. The alternative (calling generate_image blindly) is named, leaving nothing to inference.

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