context_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses what the tool reports (message count, tokens, bloat indicators) and the actionable threshold (>70%). It doesn't describe return format or side effects, but as a read-only diagnostic, this is reasonable. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly state it's non-mutating, though this is strongly implied.

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 sentences that each earn their place: what it does, when to call it, and what to do based on the result. Efficient, front-loaded with purpose, zero filler.

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 (1 optional param, no output schema). The description provides the tool's report contents and a decision threshold. It doesn't describe the output structure, but since there's no output schema and the tool is informational, describing the exact return format would be valuable. Minor gap only; for this simplicity level, it's quite complete.

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% and the parameter (conversation_id) has a thorough schema description including the fallback behavior when omitted and how to find the ID. The description itself doesn't add parameter detail, but the schema fully compensates. The only minor addition would be explaining why you'd target a different conversation, but this is well-covered already.

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 verb ("Check") and resource (context usage), and elaborates on what it shows: message count, estimated token usage, and bloat indicators. It clearly defines the purpose without tautology, and because it's a diagnostic tool, it doesn't need sibling differentiation since no sibling performs this specific function.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (starting a complex task, when suspecting context is large) and gives actionable follow-up guidance (if >70%, consider prune_context). It also effectively references the sibling tool prune_context as an alternative follow-up action, providing clear when-to-use context.

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