terminal_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It details the return content (milestone, goal status, etc.) and hints at dependencies (provider freshness). It does not mention side effects or authentication needs, but for a read-only status tool, this is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence with a front-loaded purpose and a list of return items. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's role, return content, and usage timing, fully covering what an agent needs to know.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage), so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics and does not introduce confusion.

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 returns terminal health and a Command Center summary with specific enumerated items. It positions itself as a situational awareness entry point, effectively distinguishing its purpose from sibling tools like 'run_action' or 'get_route'.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Call this first before operating,' providing clear context for when to use it. It lacks explicit mention of when not to use it or specific alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the sibling tool names.

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