bernstein_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It transparently states that even a task-server outage returns live: true plus an error, and describes the return fields. No side effects are mentioned but none are expected for a read-only status tool.

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 well-structured with a lead summary, a clear explanation of how parameters work, and a return section. Every sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 status-check tool with two optional parameters and a clear return structure (even with output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: liveness, counts, cost, optional tasks, and edge cases like outages. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that status filters tasks and detail switches to full rows. The schema already provides an enum for status, but the description clarifies the effect. Schema description coverage is 0% from context, but the tool description compensates well.

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 it answers 'how is the server doing' by providing liveness, task counts, cost, and optional filtered tasks. It uses a specific verb phrase ('answers...') and distinguishes from siblings like bernstein_run_status by focusing on overall server health.

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 explains that one call covers the whole status question, implying it's the primary tool for server health. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context of siblings provides enough differentiation.

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