seshat_get_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this with 'reads committed files under the workspace and writes nothing,' adding the specific data source. It also discloses the outcome contract ('Outcome is ok unless an input is malformed') and the return projection, going beyond mere annotation repetition.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core function, then structured into 'Use when', 'Not for', 'Returns', and 'Outcome' sections. Each sentence contributes a distinct piece of actionable information, with no filler.

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?

The tool has simple inputs (2 params), a rich output schema, and strong annotations; the description covers the reading behavior, return shape, and outcome semantics. Sibling exclusions and usage context are addressed, leaving no major gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters (workspace path constraint, table constraints including directory matching and forbidden characters). The description adds little new parameter detail, but it does clarify scope semantics ('one table's stage' vs 'overall readiness picture'), consistent with the schema. Therefore baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear action ('Report which readiness stage each table currently sits in'), naming the resource (readiness stages per table) and the scope (each table). It differentiates from siblings by naming 'seshat_explain_blockers' and 'seshat_get_next_action' as distinct tools, making the primary purpose unambiguous.

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 description gives explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' conditions, including named alternative tools for related but different queries. This leaves no doubt about when to select this tool versus its siblings.

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