get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does useful work: it reveals what the snapshot includes and signals the intended session-start placement. 'Snapshot' implies a non-mutating read, but it does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior or note sensitivity of exposed API keys.

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?

One tightly worded sentence with a front-loaded purpose, a concise content list, and the call-order instruction at the end. Every clause adds information.

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 health/config tool, the description covers what the agent receives and when to invoke it. Even without an output schema or annotations, no critical operational detail seems missing for correct invocation.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden. Baseline for zero parameters is 4; the description adds no parameter-specific details because none are needed.

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 identifies a health/config snapshot and enumerates its contents (active candidate, localCV director, DB stats, providers, API keys, saved searches). It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a status/introspection endpoint, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns'.

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 phrase 'Call first in a session' gives explicit when-to-use guidance that is highly actionable for an agent. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but as the only status/snapshot tool among siblings, exclusion is largely implicit.

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