check_rule_status

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

The description thoroughly explains the tool's behavior beyond annotations: it ignores stored status/phase fields, analyzes actual rule structure, auto-detects completion status, calculates progress percentages, and provides resumption guidance. This ensures the agent understands exactly how it operates.

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 verbose, with repeated emphasis on auto-inference and a long list of auto-inference logic details. While structured with headings, it could be more concise without losing critical 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?

Given the tool has one parameter and the description explains the output (dict with status information), it covers the essential aspects. The description also addresses resumption use cases, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 only parameter, rule_name, is described simply as 'Name of the rule to check status for.' With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value but covers the necessary context. For a single string parameter, this is adequate.

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 states the tool performs a quick status check on a rule, showing what's collected and missing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing auto-inference status analysis, making its unique purpose evident.

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 explicitly mentions the tool is 'Perfect for resuming in new chat windows,' providing clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the unique auto-inference feature implies scenarios where other status tools might not be suitable.

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