manage_ws_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: actions produce status dumps, restart, ownership claims with force option, rotation, and reconfiguration. Missing details about side effects (e.g., stealing a lock disconnects others) but still strong.

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 sentence with inline list, making it concise but slightly dense. A bulleted list could improve readability, but it front-loads key information effectively.

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 simple schema (no output schema, 2 params) and no annotations, the description covers actions and restrictions comprehensively. However, it lacks details on output format for 'info' and error handling, leaving minor gaps for a complex control 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 schema has only 50% description coverage (force described, action enums not). The description adds meaning to each action and the force parameter's role, fully compensating for schema gaps and providing clear semantics.

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 is for inspecting or controlling the machine-level WS owner, and lists specific actions (info, reconnect, claim, rotate, reconfig) with brief explanations. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that manage other resources.

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 context by enumerating actions and noting owner-only restrictions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, which would improve clarity.

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