contentrain_status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, but the description adds a crucial behavioral warning: 'Do NOT manually edit .contentrain/ based on this output.' This goes beyond annotations by specifying a post-invocation restriction.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and returns, second gives critical warning. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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 no parameters and annotations covering mutability, the description sufficiently covers the functional scope (config, models, context) and adds a safety caveat. Could optionally mention that no input is required, but schema already implies that.

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?

With no parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description 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 'Get full project status (read-only)' with specific deliverables ('config, models, context'), making the action and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform mutations (apply, delete, save) by emphasizing the read-only nature.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like contentrain_scan or contentrain_describe. The only behavioral note is a warning against manual edits, which does not help the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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