pdg_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it triggers cooking, or what happens if the path is invalid or the network is mid-cook. Minimal behavioral context beyond the literal action.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and object, making it easy to parse quickly. Perfectly concise for the information it conveys.

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 the lack of annotations and an output schema, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain the return structure, possible statuses, or edge cases (e.g., network not cooked, errors). While the tool is simple, the lack of behavioral output details makes it incomplete for reliable use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for a TOP network,' implying the 'path' parameter refers to a TOP network node, but it does not specify path format, required context, or expectations. Adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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 tool retrieves cook status and work item counts for a TOP network, using an explicit verb ('Get') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like pdg_cook (which likely triggers cooking) and pdg_workitems (which may list actual work items), though it does not 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without contextual direction, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and siblings.

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