nexus_subagent_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context by naming the statuses returned and the default list-all-recent-batches behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose potential limitations such as auth requirements or result pagination.

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 short sentences with no unnecessary content. The purpose is front-loaded, and the optional-parameter behavior is stated in the second sentence. This is concise and well structured.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers invocation and default behavior sufficiently. Mentioning 'with results' partially describes the return content, though the exact result shape is not specified; this is a minor gap.

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 100%, and the description duplicates the schema's guidance about omitting batchId to list all recent batches. It adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Check status of subagent batches', and lists the observable states (pending, running, completed). It clearly describes what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as nexus_status or nexus_subagent_run, so full sibling differentiation is missing.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like nexus_status or nexus_plan_status. The only usage instruction concerns omitting or providing batchId, which is parameter-level behavior rather than tool selection context.

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