kernel_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Check' implies a read-only behavior, but the description does not disclose response format, whether it blocks until completion, possible error states, or any side effects.

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 short sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the core action. It is concise, though it sacrifices necessary detail.

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 an agent to call this tool correctly, more context is needed: what 'ref' means, what values status can take, and how this relates to sibling logging/output tools. The low schema coverage and missing output schema make this minimal description insufficient.

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 provides 0% coverage and the only parameter 'ref' has an empty description. 'Check kernel run status' hints that 'ref' identifies the kernel, but it does not specify the expected format (e.g., slug, version, or ID).

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 'Check kernel run status' clearly identifies the verb (check) and resource (kernel run status). It is not purely tautological with the tool name, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related kernel tools such as kernel_logs or kernel_output.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The agent must infer that this tool is appropriate for status checks, and there is no mention of alternatives like kernel_logs or kernel_output.

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