novelai_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real value beyond them: 'Never returns credentials' reassures on output sensitivity and 'makes no network request' specifies a local-only behavior the annotations only hint at via openWorldHint=false.

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 sentences, zero redundancy, with the action front-loaded and the behavioral guarantees appended. Every clause earns its place.

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 trivial zero-argument diagnostic with full annotation coverage, this is adequate: it tells the agent what is inspected and what is never returned. It stops short of describing the shape of the status response (e.g., whether a boolean or config fields are returned) and there is no output schema to compensate.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the empty schema is consistent with the description's local status-check framing.

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 ('Check') and two concrete resources: local configuration and token existence. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling set, which are all image-generation/manipulation tools, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 purpose implies a pre-flight/diagnostic usage, but the description never says when to call it (e.g., before generation, on auth errors) or when not to. Usage must be inferred from the verb 'Check' rather than stated.

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