status

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

The description discloses that the tool reads a file (.htmltolink.json), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not specify permissions, error behavior if the file is missing, or return format. The phrase 'current project' is ambiguous relative to the required project_dir parameter.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource.

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?

The tool lacks annotations and an output schema, and the description does not explain the return value shape or error conditions. The ambiguity between 'current project' and the required project_dir parameter could mislead an agent. While the tool is simple, critical details for invocation are missing.

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 schema already fully describes project_dir. The description adds context by indicating that project_dir is used to locate .htmltolink.json, giving the parameter operational meaning beyond its type definition.

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 identifies the action (Check), the target (deployment status), and the method (by reading .htmltolink.json). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'deploy' which is a mutation action.

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 the tool is for verifying deployment state, which is a distinct context from the sibling 'deploy'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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