get_adaptive_brain_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable detail: it reads from bounded process, script, state, and log evidence, and emphasizes no mutation. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the evidence sources and confirming no side effects.

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 two sentences (22 words) with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and adds a clarifying sentence about read-only behavior. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description covers the purpose and evidence sources well. It could hint at the return value format (e.g., 'returns liveness status'), but the lack of output schema makes 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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no additional param info is required or provided.

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 specifies reading liveness of adaptive_brain.py daemon from multiple evidence sources (bounded process, script, state, log). This uniquely identifies the tool among many sibling get_* status tools, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 states the tool is read-only and does not mutate, giving implicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when to use this over alternatives like get_agent_loop_status. Guidance is adequate but lacks exclusions.

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