get_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with those by saying 'Report'. It adds useful context about what the status covers, especially 'explicit sending limitations', but it does not disclose details like staleness or error behavior, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence that names three distinct status dimensions without wasted words. It is compact and communicates the tool's scope efficiently.

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, read-only status tool, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what kind of information will be reported. The main gap is the lack of any guidance about when checking status matters relative to the observation lifecycle, but the low complexity and strong annotations make this acceptable.

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 the schema is fully self-documenting, so there is little for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter burden on the description.

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 ('Report') and names concrete resources: backend availability, observation expiry, and sending limitations. It clearly reads as a read-only status tool and does not overlap semantically with siblings like poll_changes or acknowledge_observation, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as poll_changes or preview_reply. An agent can infer that status checks belong here, but the description provides no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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