get_bot_status

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

The description carries the full burden since no annotations are present. It discloses the data included in the status (state, position, health, food, recent chat messages), which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, permissions, or potential delays, though the verb 'Get' implies a safe read.

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, well-structured sentence that states the tool's purpose and lists the included data fields. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete by enumerating the expected return contents. The word 'including' suggests the list may be non-exhaustive, but it gives a solid understanding of what to expect. The lack of an explicit return format is a minor gap, but acceptable given the simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is empty. According to the rubric, a tool with no parameters receives a baseline score of 4, as the description has no parameter responsibilities. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable.

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 as 'bot status', listing key components such as state, position, health, food, and recent chat messages. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_position, which also provides position data, though in a narrower scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning any specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the generic wording.

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