java_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: status omits build-log text and detailed launch/restart results, includes only a Fast Test summary, and logs is the path for actual log text. The only flaw is that the 'status omits...' sentence is ambiguous about the default details=false case, making it slightly less transparent than it could be.

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 three sentences and front-loads the main actions before diving into omissions and alternatives. It is dense but not bloated; the third sentence could be crisper with an explicit 'by default' qualifier, but overall 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 status/log tool with no output schema, the description covers the three action modes, the default source, the details behavior, and the alternative for test details. Minor gaps remain around return shape and the ambiguous details default, but the schema covers most parameter-level details, making the description sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds useful cross-parameter meaning by linking details=true to status, source=application/build to logs, and status vs logs behavior. It does not need to re-explain tail or full because the schema already documents those clearly.

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 names the tool's main actions: discover processes, inspect a status overview, request launch/restart details with details=true, and read logs. It also routes test-detail reads to java_fast_test, which helps distinguish it from a sibling. It loses a point because the sentence 'status omits build-log text and detailed launch/restart results' is unqualified and can be read as contradicting the earlier details=true option.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use logs for log text, use status for the compact overview, use details=true for launch/restart details, and use java_fast_test for test details. It also states that status omits build-log text and detailed results, providing clear exclusions. This is strong alternative routing.

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