bernstein_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It explicitly states 'Retrieves data from the Bernstein server without changing it' and 'Host effects: makes network requests,' which discloses read-only behavior and side effects. This adds useful context beyond the schema, though it does not cover details like permissions or error cases.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Liveness, task counts, and cost in one read') and followed by parameter guidance and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, return values are already covered. The description sufficiently covers the purpose, parameters, and read-only nature, making it complete for a status tool. Minor gaps exist in not fully explaining what 'liveness' entails, but overall it is well-rounded.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'Pass status to include the matching tasks' and 'pass detail=true for full per-role and per-task rows.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare enum and boolean in the schema, clarifying their purpose and defaults.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only status endpoint for liveness, task counts, and cost. It uses specific nouns and implies a resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool bernstein_run_status, so it meets 'clear' but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 usage guidance for parameters (pass status to filter tasks, detail=true for full rows) but does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like bernstein_run_status. There is no explicit 'use this for server-level status' or mention of exclusions, so it is implied rather than explicit.

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