get_status

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

No annotations are provided, but the description carries the burden well by explicitly stating the read-only nature ('Get', 'Shows') and detailing the specific status data it returns (model loaded, auto-unload time, VRAM). This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior without needing to infer side effects.

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?

Two short, information-dense sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists the specific outputs. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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, zero-parameter, read-only tool, this description is complete. There is no output schema, but the description enumerates all the relevant return values (loaded status, auto-unload time, VRAM usage). An agent has sufficient information to decide when to invoke it and what to expect.

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 zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 4. The description correctly makes no mention of parameters, and the tool's operation is entirely defined by its lack of inputs.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of the FLUX generator'), and lists exactly what it shows (model loaded, time until auto-unload, VRAM usage). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_preview or generate_image, which serve different purposes.

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 clearly implies when to use it: whenever the agent needs to check generator status. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is obvious and no exclusions are needed. The sibling tools are clearly different in function.

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