project_status

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

The description discloses that it provides 'Live' status and real-time data (knowledge base stats, vector health, research queue). It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or read-only nature, but as a status tool the behavioral traits are adequately conveyed. No annotations exist to contradict.

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 well-structured with an introductory sentence followed by bullet points. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. The main purpose is front-loaded.

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 zero parameters and an output schema (not shown but referenced), the description fully covers what the tool returns and its purpose. It is complete for a status tool with no inputs.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Per guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info because there are none.

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 identifies the tool as providing live system status and a quick-start guide. It lists specific outputs (knowledge base stats, vector health, MCP tools, research queue, tips) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hive_status or memory_stats by being a general orientation command.

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 explicitly states 'Call this anytime' and positions it as an orientation tool: 'Use it to orient yourself and teach your agent how to leverage MidOS.' While it doesn't specify when not to use it or compare to alternatives, the context of sibling tools implies it is for initial and general status checks.

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