Crew status

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — it enumerates what gets reported (config, resolved workspace, worker availability) and frames the tool as the diagnostic entry point. It stops short of describing output format or failure behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The capability is front-loaded and the diagnostic directive follows immediately; every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only, zero-required-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers what is reported and when to reach for it. Only the return structure is unspecified, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the workspace default behavior. The description only echoes this with 'the workspace it will read,' adding marginal meaning. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Show) and resource (crew configuration, the workspace it reads, and which workers are available), with concrete worker categories named. It is clearly distinct in function from siblings like crew_stats or crew_recon, though it never explicitly names an alternative to differentiate against.

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?

Gives an explicit conditional trigger: 'Run this first if another crew tool errors.' This tells the agent exactly when this tool is the right call, but does not describe the normal (non-error) invocation path or contrast against siblings for routine use.

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