arch_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses read-only behavior and lists the reported content, but it does not cover permissions or auth requirements, freshness or caching, error behavior, or the response shape. For a simple status tool this is moderate transparency.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Each clause names a concrete status component, and 'Read-only' is a useful behavioral tag.

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 low-complexity read-only status tool with no output schema, the description names the core return categories and the read-only safety property. It leaves usage routing against siblings and some behavioral details unstated, but the schema covers the parameters fully.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both optional parameters, including workspace default resolution and max_bytes budget. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific resource and scope—workspace status—and enumerates what it reports: detected stacks, git info, graph index coverage, and adapter availability. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as arch_snapshot, so it falls short of 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusions. 'Workspace status' and 'Read-only' imply a diagnostic call, but the agent is not told when to choose this tool over arch_snapshot, arch_diff, or the other siblings.

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