Who Is Working

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and side effects. The description complements these by detailing what the tool returns (annotated list with specific fields), adding behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Description is extremely concise, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by a structured bullet list of return fields and a usage note. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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?

Given the simple input schema (one optional param) and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and why to use it. It could mention pagination or limits, but for a read-only overview tool, the provided information is sufficient.

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% for the single optional parameter (workflow_id), with a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, but this is acceptable given the schema does the job. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 it shows active agents/developers and their current tasks, blockers, and status. The verb 'Show' combined with specific fields (status, task, blocker) provides a precise resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cph_task_list or cph_status by focusing on active session overview with team state.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use this to understand team state before starting work,' giving clear context for when to invoke. While it doesn't list when not to use or alternatives, the context from sibling tools (e.g., cph_blocker_list for blockers, cph_task_list for tasks) makes the guidance sufficient.

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