broll status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that probe:true makes real authenticated API calls but posts nothing, which is a key safety behavior. It does not explicitly state that the default (probe:false) is read-only, but 'Report' implies a non-mutating operation. Overall, the main behavioral risk (live calls) is well covered.

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 the primary action, followed by a directive and a conditional usage note. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the what, when, and how (probe). It doesn't describe the return format, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. A 5 would require explicit return value details.

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% for the single 'probe' parameter, with the schema already explaining 'Live-verify social platform credentials (no posts are made)'. The description adds a slightly more explicit phrase about 'real authenticated API calls' but does not provide meaningful new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates exact resources (workspace location, ffmpeg availability, generation providers, social platform readiness). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_image or publish_post by focusing on environment status rather than content operations.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first to see what is possible,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains when to use probe:true for credential verification. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the role as a preliminary status check is strong.

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