Get triage status

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a hard dependency on the Shotef triage plugin and a graceful failure mode (reports cleanly and redirects to reading the topic). It does not address auth or caching, but for a read-only status lookup this is solid added value.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the returned states, then the question answered, then the plugin caveat. Every sentence earns its place; density is justified by the lack of an output schema.

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?

Without an output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it does: enumerates the state values plus team and parked status. The plugin dependency and failure behavior close the remaining operational gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single documented tid parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no identifier format or validity guidance, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (triage status of a topic) and enumerates the exact payload: workflow states (received, in progress, awaiting the reporter, closed), the handling team, and the parked flag. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_topic or get_triage_board without opening any schema.

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?

Frames the use case crisply with the question it answers ('is anyone working on this, and was it ever resolved?') and names the fallback when the plugin is absent (read the topic instead). It stops short of contrasting itself with the board-level sibling get_triage_board or stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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