arsenkin_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the most important behavioral trait: this call is non-submitting and does not incur a paid task. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter status check the main risk is addressed.

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 sentence with the verb and object front-loaded, followed by a valuable clarification. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is checked and explicitly rules out paid submission. It could be slightly more explicit about task-level status being handled by arsenkin_task_status, but the 'account/API status' wording already covers that distinction.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter-related detail.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and the resource 'Arsenkin account/API status,' which is clear and distinct. It also explicitly says it does not submit a paid task, distinguishing it from the submit/batch_submit siblings and, by using 'account/API,' from arsenkin_task_status.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (to check account/API status) and gives an important exclusion: it does not submit a paid task. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as arsenkin_task_status, but the intended context is still clear.

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