studio_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately explains the three actions and the return format for the 'status' action. However, it does not disclose potential side effects of 'rename' (e.g., whether it is reversible or requires specific permissions) or mention rate limits or error handling. The lack of contradiction with annotations is noted.

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 well-structured with clear sections for arguments and returns. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While informative, it could be slightly more concise by consolidating some details. Overall, it is organized and readable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity with multiple actions and parameters, the description covers the 'status' action return format in detail but omits return structures for 'rename' and 'list_types'. Error handling and edge cases are not addressed. The presence of an output schema (not shown) may mitigate this, but the description alone is incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains all four parameters: notebook_id (required, UUID), action (with options and defaults), and conditional requirements for artifact_id and new_title when rename is chosen. Each parameter's purpose and usage are clearly elucidated, going well beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's dual purpose: checking studio content generation status and renaming artifacts. It uses specific verbs ('check', 'rename') and resource ('studio content generation', 'artifact'). While it distinguishes from siblings like 'studio_create' and 'studio_delete', it does not explicitly contrast with 'notebook_query' which also fetches status, though the scope differs.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. It explains internal action options but does not specify when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives for different tasks (e.g., use 'studio_create' for new artifacts). The usage context is only implied by the actions.

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