spraay_robots_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds cost information and a minor instruction to pass fields directly, but does not expand on other behavioral aspects like rate limits, idempotency, or side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose immediately. Every sentence adds value (purpose, cost, readonly, usage hint) with no waste.

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 a polling tool with output schema and annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks context about when to use (e.g., after submitting a task via robots_task), what the output contains (though covered by output schema), and preconditions. It meets minimum viability but could be more helpful.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter (task_id) described minimally as 'task_id parameter'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'Pass the listed fields directly', which is redundant. Baseline 3 applies since schema covers all parameters.

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 states 'Poll task status', clearly indicating the verb (poll) and resource (task status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like robots_list (list robots) and robots_task (likely manage tasks) by focusing on polling status.

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 mentions cost ($0.002 per call) and readonly nature, providing operational context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like robots_list or robots_task, nor does it provide preconditions (e.g., task must exist).

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