copilot_get_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the hint that settings are 'private' and that the CRM route is 'external', which lightly reinforces openWorld behavior but says nothing about response shape or whether sensitive values are redacted.

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 no filler. It is dense with jargon ('synchronization coverage', 'external company CRM route') that is not unpacked, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place to learn what comes back, and it lists categories without saying what a 'transport limit' or 'CRM route' value looks like. For a zero-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the payload.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly does not waste space 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?

Names a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates the resources returned: settings, transport limits, synchronization coverage, and CRM route. It is more specific than the bare name, but it does not distinguish this from close siblings like copilot_get_activity or crm_get_sync_queue, which likely return overlapping sync/status data.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus copilot_get_activity, crm_get_sync_queue, or copilot_update_settings. The agent must infer usage purely from the noun list, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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