bernstein_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects or access requirements. The return format is described, but behavioral traits beyond that are absent.

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 very concise at two sentences, with the first sentence stating the main purpose and the second detailing the return values. No unnecessary information is included.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully explains the output and purpose. It covers what the tool returns and implies it is a read operation. Complete for the tool's 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 no parameters (schema is empty), so description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by detailing the output structure, specifying counts and per-role breakdown, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 returns a summary of task counts from the Bernstein server, listing specific fields (total, open, claimed, done, failed) and per-role breakdown, which distinguishes it from other tools like bernstein_tasks or bernstein_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 implies the tool is for getting an overview of task status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like bernstein_tasks or bernstein_scenario_status. Guidance on when to use is missing.

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