shell_shim_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the shim is opt-in via helper/install-shim.sh, streams preexec/command_finished events over a per-uid Unix socket, and is an observability surface in v6.0 rather than an execution path. It does not explicitly state read-only safety, permissions, or behavior when the shim is not installed, but "Report the status" strongly implies a non-mutating diagnostic operation.

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 front-loaded with the returned status fields and then supplies the operational context needed to interpret them. The final sentence about deferred auto-routing is slightly ancillary but earns its place by preventing an agent from assuming this tool changes execute_command behavior.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description usefully lists the status information the caller receives and explains how the shim becomes active. It could be more complete by describing behavior when the shim is not installed or not listening, but it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the diagnostic correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The schema coverage is 100% and the description correctly does not invent parameter details that do not exist.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Report the status of the optional shell shim") and enumerates the status fields returned: socket path, listening state, event count, and recent events. It also distinguishes this observability tool from execute_command by noting that shim-based auto-routing is deferred to v6.0.x.

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 explains that the shim is opt-in and active inside a Warp pane, which gives useful context for when the status is meaningful. However, it never explicitly states when an agent should call this tool versus alternatives such as self_check, nor does it describe when the tool would be unhelpful or how to react if the shim is inactive.

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