get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scope of state inspected (session, lens, analysis task, capabilities), which implicitly frames this as a non-mutating inspection, but it never explicitly confirms read-only/idempotent behavior, side effects, cost, or state freshness.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no preamble or filler, and the most important noun (status) is implied by the name and reinforced by the field list. It is a comma-separated enumeration rather than structured prose, but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description is not obliged to explain return formats, and a parameterless status tool needs little else. The only gap is the absence of any guidance on when the reported state is meaningful or how often to re-check, which is minor given the tool's simplicity and its English-named sibling set.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No argument semantics are needed or missing.

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 names a clear verb (return/get) and enumerates the specific resources reported: backend type, CODE V version, session and lens state, current analysis task, and supported capabilities. No sibling tool (open_lens, get_lens, run_analysis, etc.) overlaps with this diagnostic role, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings, which keeps it from 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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or follow-up tools. The list of returned state only implicitly suggests a 'check before you act' role; the agent must infer when this call is warranted versus get_lens or get_analysis.

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