creator_get_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It communicates that this is a read operation returning a status snapshot and lists the categories of state included, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it describe failure modes or return structure. For a non-mutating getter this is adequate, though not deeply informative.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes meaning, efficiently covering the tool's action and the specific status fields it returns.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job by explicitly listing the six status categories, giving an agent a clear picture of what the tool reports. It could additionally mention whether the result is a single combined object or separate fields, but for a simple status getter this is nearly complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter documentation is irrelevant. The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters, which is the expected baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: the current Inochi Creator project status, enumerating path, edit mode, selection, armed parameter, and undo state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like creator_get_node or creator_list_parameters, which target specific nodes or parameter lists rather than a global status snapshot.

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 purpose strongly implies this tool is for checking current project state before acting, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative getters, nor any 'when not to use' conditions. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so the guidance is only implied.

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