get_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'orient yourself' ordering advice and names returned fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as staleness, cost, or failure modes. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences convey the action, the key returned fields, and the recommended invocation timing. There is no filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent status tool, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what data the call returns and when to issue it, while the annotations cover side-effect safety. No output schema exists, but the listed fields provide adequate expectations.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain inputs. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the status read returns rather than on parameter syntax.

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 identifies the operation as reading the daemon's current status and names three concrete fields it returns: phase, word count, and accept rate. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from overlapping siblings like get_progress or get_review_state, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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?

'Call this first to orient yourself' provides clear contextual guidance on when to invoke this tool at session start. It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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