apk_status

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

With no annotations, the description explicitly labels the operation as a read, disclosing its read-only nature. It adds context about the file's origin ('written by the orchestrator'), but does not describe error behavior or what happens if the file is missing.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though it could contain slightly more useful context without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. However, it omits any explanation of case_dir semantics or how the path relates to the orchestrator's output, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no description for case_dir (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. The agent is left to infer the parameter's meaning solely from its name.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and a clear resource 'case status.json written by the orchestrator.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apk_orchestrate or apk_report, though it doesn't explicitly name 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implicit context is that the file is produced by the orchestrator.

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