workbuddy_session_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a good job: it explicitly marks the operation as a read and discloses the key side-effect-free trait of not sending a prompt. It does not elaborate on return shape or error cases, but for a status read that is a minor gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the operation, the object, and the key qualifier with zero filler. 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?

For a low-complexity, one-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential invocation facts: what is read, what is returned conceptually, and that no prompt is sent. It omits an explicit return format and prerequisites, but the absence of an output schema and simple scope keep this from being a major 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?

The schema provides no description for taskId (0% coverage), and the tool description never explicitly defines it. 'task/session status' implies taskId identifies a session, but no format, ownership, or lifecycle context is given, so the description does not compensate for the empty schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a concrete resource ('task/session status and any pending ACP permission requests'), and adds a distinguishing qualifier ('without sending a prompt'). This clearly separates it from action-oriented siblings like workbuddy_session_send or workbuddy_session_cancel.

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 'without sending a prompt' implies this is the safe status-checking alternative to session_send, but the description never states when to prefer it over workbuddy_status or the session action tools. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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