paroli_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, error handling, or what happens if no session exists. The limited information (three fields) does not sufficiently reveal behavior.

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?

Single sentence directly stating action and contents. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with main purpose. Appropriate for a simple parameterless tool.

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 no output schema, the description partially documents return fields but does not describe the full response structure (e.g., JSON object, additional fields, status codes). For a zero-parameter read tool, it is somewhat complete but could be more explicit about the output format.

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 schema coverage is 100% trivially. Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that without adding extraneous details.

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 retrieves the current Paroli session status and lists specific fields (bet, win streak, profit). It distinguishes from sibling status tools by naming 'Paroli' and detailing contents, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the other Paroli tools (e.g., init, record, reset, statistics) or what prerequisites exist. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide context for selection among siblings.

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