Machine Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that heavy ops self-check and refuse with a reason, and explains how outside commands must be wrapped (`python -m ismail.machine run --gpu|--cpu`) to take a slot. It doesn't explicitly state it is read-only/non-mutating, which is the only real gap.

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 trigger and the reported data, then the slot/wrapper mechanics. The parenthetical list of heavy operations is a bit dense but earns its place by making the trigger concrete.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be detailed, and the description nonetheless narrates them. For a no-annotation status tool it covers behavior and usage well; the missing `project` parameter semantics is the one incomplete element.

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 single `project` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so its meaning (does it scope the running-job report to one project?) is entirely undocumented. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (report machine status) and enumerates exactly what it returns: GPU heat/throttling, CPU, free memory, running heavy jobs, and whether a new GPU/CPU job may start. No sibling tool does anything similar, so an agent can identify it without ambiguity.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use trigger ('before anything heavy') with concrete operation examples (a render over a minute, separate, mimic_measure, a fit, Blender, whisper). It also notes heavy ops self-check, implying you may not need to call it manually, but it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition.

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