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

Goes beyond the annotations meaningfully: it discloses that the result is deterministic and uses no AI model, that it consumes no plan allowance, and that waiting points carry only kind and link, never their content. The 'nothing is decided or changed' line reinforces the readOnly hint rather than contradicting it.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the guarantees (determinism, no plan allowance, no changes). The first sentence is dense with nested appositives, which costs a little readability but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden itself, and it does: a status sentence, waiting points (kind + link, no content), and open threads as references. For a zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it does not waste words on parameters.

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 and resource (returns the space's status summary) and enumerates the three things included: a one-sentence standing, waiting points with kind and link, and open threads as references. The sibling hermetics_message is never named, so the agent gets no explicit differentiation from the write/message tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the 'what's the current state of my space' read. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no routing to a sibling such as hermetics_message for follow-up actions.

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