cantrip_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a read-only diagnostic tool (implied by 'Check' and 'Returns'), handles authentication states, provides setup instructions for missing API keys, and sources data from '.cantrip.json'. However, it lacks details on error handling or rate limits, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and edge-case handling. Both sentences earn their place: the first defines the tool's function, and the second adds critical context for setup scenarios. There is zero waste 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?

Given the tool's complexity (diagnostic with conditional outputs), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining what it returns and handling missing API keys. However, it doesn't detail the exact structure of returned data (e.g., JSON format), which could be useful for an agent, preventing a perfect score.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and output without redundant param info. It earns a 4 for not adding unnecessary details, though a 5 would require exceptional clarity beyond this baseline.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Check', 'Returns') and resources ('daemon health, authentication, and current project'), distinguishing it from siblings like cantrip_connect (connection setup) or cantrip_project (project management). It explicitly lists what gets checked and returned, avoiding tautology with the name.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it states when to use this tool ('Check daemon health, authentication, and current project') and includes an alternative scenario ('When CANTRIP_API_KEY is missing, returns setup instructions'), which helps differentiate it from tools like cantrip_connect for initial setup or cantrip_project for project-specific actions.

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