project_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly describes the behavior: real-time stats, vector health, available MCP tools with examples, research queue, and tips. There is no contradiction with annotations as none exist.

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 concise and well-structured: a title line, a bullet list of what the tool returns, and a closing sentence. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse.

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 no parameters and the presence of an output schema (though not provided), the description is complete. It lists all the return items explicitly, making it sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and use.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it provides no parameter information, which 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?

The description is very specific: 'Live MidOS system status + quick-start guide for your agent.' It lists exactly what it returns (stats, health, tools, queue, tips) and clearly states it is a '/status command,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like hive_status and memory_stats.

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 says 'Call this anytime' and 'Use it to orient yourself and teach your agent how to leverage MidOS,' providing clear guidance on when to use it. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the context is strong enough.

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