wind_down_status

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

Annotations only indicate destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the useful detail about per-step failures and that it returns current or most recent progress. It does not describe other behavioral aspects like whether it blocks or requires active scheduling, but with limited annotations the description provides moderate value beyond them.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes the critical per-step failures detail. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with only two optional parameters, no required params, and the schema covers them well. The description covers the core read operation and the availability of per-step failure info. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without more detail.

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%, so the parameters are well documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. It doesn't clarify how response_format affects output beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 states the tool reads wind-down progress and includes per-step failures. It is specific about the resource (wind-down status) and the action (read). While it does not name a sibling, the purpose is clear and distinct from scheduling/canceling wind-down tools.

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 implies it is for reading status, but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like schedule_wind_down or cancel_wind_down. It does not mention that it only reads and does not modify, though the annotation hints at non-destructive behavior.

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