mullet_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 discloses the information returned (active tasks, provider health, budget), which implies a passive read, but never confirms it is side-effect free, whether it triggers any polling/refresh, or how costly a call is.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, followed immediately by the payload facets. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value and safety context. Listing the three facets gives a rough shape, but the actual response format and read-only nature are not described, leaving the agent to guess at what a call returns.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameter-free tool applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check Mullet's current status') and enumerates the reported facets: active tasks, provider health, budget. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like mullet_budget or mullet_providers, which cover overlapping facets individually, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'current status' implies a quick health/overview check, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the narrower mullet_budget / mullet_providers tools it overlaps with. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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