chipotle_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the tool's behavior: checking connection and login status. It is a read-only check and does not modify anything, which is implied by 'check' and 'verify.' However, it could explicitly state it makes no changes.

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 concise with two sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and adds usage guidance efficiently.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is complete. It tells what the tool does and when to use it, sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information beyond what the schema provides, and schema coverage is 100%.

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 checks connection and login status for Chipotle. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chipotle_login by specifying it is for verification, not performing login. The verb 'check' and resource 'connection status and login' are specific.

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 instructs to 'call this first to verify authentication before ordering,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the directive is strong and unambiguous.

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