aa_status

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

Annotations already fully declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds the content of the read, but says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or result shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Some domain jargon ('depth', 'lens') is left unexplained, which costs a point.

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?

With rich safety annotations and no output schema, the description is serviceable, but the unaddressed workspace parameter and the vague 'depth/lens' vocabulary leave gaps an agent must guess at before calling.

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?

There is exactly one parameter (workspace) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — not its meaning, scoping role, or format. The sole undocumented parameter is left entirely to inference.

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?

Specific verb (Read) and resource (an investigation's status), with the returned facets enumerated: checklist, depth, lens, and report validation state. It reasonably distinguishes it from write/validate siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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 states what is read but gives no guidance on when to call it versus alternatives like aa_validate, aa_checklist, or aa_rea_status, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the field list.

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