format_status_footer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals that the tool builds a mandatory footer and requires char counts, which is somewhat behavioral. However, it doesn't disclose what the footer looks like, how it displays progress bars, or any side effects. It's a light description that could add more detail about the output format or constraints (e.g., what happens if counts are missing).

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 short and for the most part to the point, with a specific instruction. One slight issue: the mixed language ('Pass THIS TURN char counts for 本轮 tok') may reduce clarity, but it's still compact. It front-loads the purpose and key instruction. Not a 5 due to the minor bilingual phrase that might confuse.

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 tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It tells the user to pass char counts but doesn't explain how parameters like understanding_pct, progress_pct, turn_count, conversation_chars, or include_progress_bar are used. A more complete description would detail required fields and behaviors. The complexity is moderate-high, and the description doesn't fully cover it.

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 coverage is 50%: only 6 out of 12 parameters have descriptions (reply_chars, tool_call_count, tool_result_chars, user_message_chars, turn_tokens_reported, reply_tokens_reported). The tool description doesn't add meaning for the undocumented parameters like turn_count, conversation_chars, include_progress_bar, context_percent_reported, or the required understanding_pct/progress_pct. It mentions 'char counts' generally but doesn't map to specific params. Baseline 3 because coverage is 50% and description partially helps but leaves gaps.

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 builds a mandatory ADHD reply footer and specifies the key input (char counts for this turn). It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_readiness and qa_session_tools by focusing on footer formatting. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or contrast its function with them, so not a 5.

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?

The phrase 'Pass THIS TURN char counts' gives some usage guidance, implying the user should supply metrics for the current interaction. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use estimate_context vs format_status_footer), nor does it state any conditions or exclusions. Minimal guidance.

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