threadmap_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals the return components (color, score, inflection flag) but does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation, potential errors, or how sessionId affects results. The verb 'Get' implies a read, but this is not explicit.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple status getter.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain what 'drift status' means, how sessionId is used, the structure of the response, or how this fits with sibling tools. The agent is left with significant ambiguity.

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 coverage is 0% (only a param name 'sessionId'), and the description does not mention or explain the parameter at all. Since the description must compensate for the low schema coverage, the total lack of param guidance leaves the agent without clues about how to supply or use sessionId.

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 ('Get') and identifies the resource ('drift status') with explicit output details (latest color, score, inflection point). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like threadmap_timeline (historical) and threadmap_track (likely a different action).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies usage by naming 'current drift status' but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools for other needs.

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