Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — not what is inspected, not whether it reads local state or remote repos, not whether it is safe to poll — and is only barely consistent with the read-only annotation.

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 single fragment 'Status (rm_rollout).' is short but under-specified rather than concise; there is no front-loaded statement of purpose or scope, just a repeated label.

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 eight parameters, two required (dependency, floor), a default dry_run=true, and an output schema present, the description should at minimum explain what status is being reported and for which rollout phase. It supplies none of that, leaving the agent unable to distinguish this from adjacent rollout tools.

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 all eight parameters (dependency, floor, jobs, only, extra, group, dry_run, manifest) are documented in the schema itself, which sets the baseline at 3. The description contributes nothing to parameter meaning, but does not need to given full coverage.

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 is 'Status (rm_rollout)', which merely restates the tool name and title without saying what status is reported, for what scope, or how it differs from siblings like rm_rollout_plan, rm_rollout_apply, or rm_gates_status. An agent learns nothing beyond the word 'status'.

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 guidance whatsoever on when to call this versus rm_rollout_plan, rm_rollout_apply, rm_rollout_release, or the other status-like siblings. No preconditions, no exclusions, no alternative routing.

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