epost_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return values ('ok' or 'login_required') and implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or idempotent. Additional context like 'This operation does not modify any data' would improve transparency.

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 sentence of 16 words, front-loading the purpose. Every word is meaningful with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple status-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool checks and the two possible return values, sufficient for an agent to understand its behavior.

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 tool has no parameters (empty input schema, 100% coverage). Per scoring rules, baseline is 4 for zero parameters. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given no parameters exist.

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 checks ePost session status, returning 'ok' or 'login_required'. It specifies the resource (ePost session) and the action (check), distinguishing it from sibling tools like epost_login or epost_unread_count.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as suggesting it be called before other ePost operations to verify session validity. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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