credence_project_status

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool 'shows all unverified constraints' but does not disclose whether it is read-only, has performance implications, or requires specific permissions. Lacks behavioral context beyond the basic output.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence provides a clear summary ('epistemic health dashboard'), second sentence details scope. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so description need not explain return values. It sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and scope. No additional context is necessary 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% with parameter 'project_id' described as 'Project identifier.' The description reinforces that the project is the container for snapshotted constraints but adds no new semantic detail about format, constraints, or valid values. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states verb ('shows'), resource ('all unverified constraints'), and scope ('project-wide', 'snapshotted to this project'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the context of snapshots via credence_memory_snapshot, providing a specific purpose.

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?

Description implies use for checking unverified constraints in a project context but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like credence_scan or credence_verify. No when-not-to-use or sibling differentiation beyond mentioning the snapshot relation.

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