get_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait that it is concurrency-safe while another tool is blocking. It also enumerates what state is exposed (running command, elapsed time, computing/idle, design state number, run_tcl constraint changes, log directory). It stops short of edge cases such as behavior when no design is loaded.

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?

It is front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then a single sentence listing returned state, which is efficient. Some enumerated return items arguably duplicate the available output schema, making it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

Given zero parameters, an output schema for the return shape, and no annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: what it reports and that it is safe to call concurrently with a blocking tool. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the schema baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameters.

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 resource — the status of the OpenSTA session ('What the OpenSTA session is doing') — so the agent knows this returns session state rather than timing or power data. However, it never distinguishes itself from the overlapping sibling get_summary or get_conditions, leaving the agent to guess which status-like tool to pick.

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?

It gives a concrete usage context: 'Safe to call at any time, including while another tool is waiting,' which tells the agent it can be invoked concurrently with other calls. It does not, however, name an alternative or state when a sibling like get_summary would be preferred instead.

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