workbuddy_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' conveys a read-only query and 'persisted' clarifies that it reads durable state rather than live sessions, but the description does not mention return format, ordering, or whether any filtering applies.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and the kind of result returned.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: the agent knows what action to take and what resource is involved. It loses one point because it does not explicitly distinguish task status from session status among the closely related sibling tools.

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, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already conveys. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are not a meaningful gap here.

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 ('List'), a defined resource ('persisted WorkBuddy tasks'), and a clear output focus ('current lifecycle status'). It is unambiguous and can be distinguished from siblings by resource type, though it does not explicitly name workbuddy_session_status as the session-focused alternative.

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 use this tool versus the sibling workbuddy_session_status or other session tools. The description implies it is for querying persisted tasks, but it does not state exclusions or point to alternatives for session-level status.

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