sym_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 solid job: it enumerates the state categories, exposes the extension.director playbook, and discloses the expired-license path and automatic queue resume. It does not explicitly state whether the call is read-only or side-effect free, but 'status' and 'Call it FIRST' strongly imply a safe state probe.

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 long but information-dense: every clause adds either a state category, an instruction, or a conditional behavior. It is front-loaded with 'Call it FIRST and follow the playbook' before diving into details, and there is 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and many siblings, the description covers the main response areas, the call ordering, and the license-expiration handling. It does not define the structure of extension.director or explain what following the playbook entails, but that may be intentional since the playbook itself is returned by the tool.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to explain; the no-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description adds useful meaning by detailing what the returned state contains, which is more valuable than parameter documentation 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 clearly explains what the tool reports: bridge/extension state, Creative Studio connection, credits, queue, inbox, and extension.director. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'return', and it does not explicitly contrast itself with focused siblings such as sym_credits or sym_inbox, though 'Call it FIRST' signals its entry-point role.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: call this tool first, follow the director playbook, and handle an expired license by asking the user to activate a key. It does not state when to use sym_inbox or sym_credits instead of this aggregated status tool, so the exclusion/alternative guidance is incomplete.

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