echopath_get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a non-mutating snapshot read, but says nothing about whether debug mode must be enabled, whether the session must be active, what happens for an unknown session_id, or what 'status' actually encompasses. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource lead and nothing is repeated from the title or 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. But with no annotations and an entirely undocumented parameter, the description leaves real gaps for what should be a trivial call: what 'debug status' contains and what makes a session_id valid.

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?

There is one parameter (session_id) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate at all — it never mentions the parameter, its format, or where a valid session_id comes from (e.g. echopath_list_sessions). The schema alone leaves the agent guessing.

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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('current debug status') scoped to an 'EchoPath session', which separates it from get_session/get_task/get_procedure. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary between 'status' and the other session/task getters.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the 16 siblings (e.g. echopath_get_session, echopath_smoke_check). The agent gets a definition but no routing signal.

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