status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful output detail beyond a label — the three possible state values, one line per session, and the presence of last-error and log-path fields — which implies a read-only observation tool. However, it never explicitly states that it has no side effects, does not require a session identifier, or what the output format/length looks like beyond 'one line per session'.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the most important element (kernel state and its enum values) and then lists the supplemental fields. Dense but every clause carries information; only the ambiguous 'its name count' phrase is slightly muddy.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey return content — which it does reasonably well. But for a tool with six action siblings, the absence of any guidance on when to invoke it (e.g., before exec or after interrupt) leaves a genuine 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4; the empty schema is fully consistent with a global status snapshot. The description reinforces this by describing a single aggregate report covering all sessions rather than anything that would need arguments.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool reports: kernel state (running/busy/not running), pid, uptime, and per-session details including name count, active jobs, last error, and log path. That specificity clearly separates it from action-oriented siblings like interrupt, exec, and reset. It loses a point only because it is a noun-phrase fragment with no explicit verb such as 'reports' or 'returns'.

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 statement of when to call this versus the siblings, no mention of polling it before interrupt/reset, and no exclusions. The only implicit cue is that it is a state-inspection tool, which an agent must infer from the field list.

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