monitor_render

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a non-obvious trait: it runs bridge-side and needs no Houdini connection, plus the side effect of reporting file existence/size. It stops short of describing failure modes or what a paused/killed render looks like, but the key operational context is present.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, optional parameter behavior second, and execution context last. No repetition 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. For a single-optional-param monitoring tool, the description covers purpose, the param's effect, and runtime context, leaving only minor gaps around status edge cases.

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 single parameter has 0% schema coverage, and the description compensates by explaining that output_path is optional and what it triggers ('also report file existence and size'). That maps the parameter to a concrete effect, exceeding the bare name.

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?

Specific verb ('Check') plus resource ('Karma (husk) or Mantra (mantra-bin) render') and scope ('still running'). It names both render engines it covers, and no sibling tool monitors render status, so an agent can identify its unique purpose immediately.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing 'Check if ... is still running,' and there is no sibling that overlaps, so no alternative needs to be named. However, the description offers no explicit when-to-use trigger or exclusions.

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