flow_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (checking status) which strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects, mention any required permissions, or note rate limits. For a status check this is adequate but not fully explicit.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the verb and object. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is as concise as possible while remaining clear.

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 status-check tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to know to call it correctly. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit usage timing, but that is already addressed under usage guidelines and is not critical for a tool this straightforward.

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, and the schema documents this fully (coverage 100%). No parameter descriptions are needed, and the description correctly avoids adding irrelevant information. The baseline of 4 for no parameters is appropriate.

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 states a specific action (verifica = checks) and a precise resource: connection status, account authentication, and active project. This unambiguously identifies what the tool does and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling generation tools, which produce content rather than report state.

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 implies a diagnostic purpose but does not explicitly instruct when to call it (e.g., before using generate_image/generate_video) or when not to use alternatives. The context of sibling generation tools makes the intended use apparent, but the text leaves the guidance implicit.

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