dsh_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by revealing the shape of the returned state: separate availability/execution state, root versus descendant sessions, queue depths, pending interactions, and bridge-local workspace semantics. This clarifies what the status contains beyond what the generic read-only annotation implies.

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?

Everything is packed into one dense, roughly 30-word sentence with no filler or repeated structured data. It is front-loaded with the action 'Return' and then lists distinct pieces of state. The slash-separated enumeration is compact, though slightly harder to parse than a structured list would be.

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 read-only one-parameter tool, the description gives a good sense of what the output will cover and the input schema covers the expected ID format. However, the terms 'bridge cursor/watermarks' and 'bridge-local workspace claim semantics' are not explained, and there is no output schema to clarify the exact return representation. This leaves interpretation gaps for an agent despite the invocation being straightforward.

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 one required parameter, taskId, with a pattern but no written semantics, and the description does not explicitly explain what taskId refers to. However, the tool name and the status content strongly imply taskId is the dsh task being inspected. The parameter is self-evident enough to be callable, but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation in a meaningful way.

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 starts with a clear verb 'Return' and names a specific resource: the status object containing availability/execution state, sessions, queue depths, pending interactions, final answer, and bridge-related cursors/watermarks. It distinguishes itself from siblings like dsh_host_status and dsh_find_sessions by listing compound status content, but it does not explicitly state that the tool returns this for the given taskId.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use dsh_status versus dsh_wait, dsh_tail, dsh_observe, or dsh_continue. The description implies this is a read-only snapshot, but it never states that it is non-blocking, that it should be used for a point-in-time check, or that other tools cover waiting/tailing/observing behavior.

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