sc_get_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that it never raises when the provider is unavailable and returns specific states ('unknown', 'not_in_depot'), which is valuable. It also documents the return structure, but does not mention permissions or side effects (though it is a read operation).

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 well-structured with sections (Args, Returns, KB, Example) and front-loads the purpose. It is slightly longer than necessary but every part adds value, including the behavioral note and example. No filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema (per signals), the description also explains the return fields, making it self-contained. The example and KB reference add context. For a low-complexity tool with one parameter, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the single parameter. It does: 'path' is described as a package path or absolute filesystem path with an example. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 states a clear verb 'Get' and a specific resource 'source control status of a single asset or file path', with precise path types (package or absolute filesystem). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a single asset status, which is clear even without naming alternatives.

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 implies usage for checking status but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sc_get_provider_info or sc_get_changelist. It lacks when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, though the example provides a concrete scenario.

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