status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the server reads the filesystem only (store is always 'disk') and quotes a cost of about 40 tokens. It implies read-only semantics without stating them explicitly, which is the only gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the return contents, then cost, then routing advice — the most actionable sentence comes last but is short. The parenthetical enumeration of counts is slightly dense but every clause carries payload information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does enumerate the returned fields and their semantics (notably the store always being 'disk'). What remains unstated is the shape/format of the hash and counts, a minor gap for a cheap probe tool.

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 per the baseline this scores 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly stays silent on 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 name 'status' alone is nearly tautological, but the description compensates by enumerating exactly what the payload contains (version, public-surface counts, name hash, answer source). It clearly distinguishes itself from the list_*/get_* siblings as a cheap overview probe rather than a content reader.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Call it first; page list_* only when the hash changed since you last looked.' This tells the agent both when to use it and the precise condition under which to fall through to the alternatives.

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