view_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. The word "Read" implies a non-mutating operation and it enumerates the three fields returned, which is useful. However it says nothing about permissions, session requirements, or freshness/refresh behavior, which matters for a status tool.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the verb and returned content front-loaded and no filler. It could not be trimmed further without losing the field list.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain return formatting, and it is correspondingly brief. The gap is the required session_id, which is neither described nor explained anywhere, leaving the definition only just adequate for invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description makes no mention of session_id, so the single required parameter is undocumented in both places. The description adds no meaning about what session the status belongs to or how to obtain a valid id.

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 uses a specific verb ("Read") with a clearly named resource set: GUI heartbeat, displayed revision, and last snapshot load time. That distinguishes it from mutation or capture siblings like view_set and view_capture, though it never explicitly names a sibling to route 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as session_status or system_capabilities. The agent is left to infer the context entirely from the name.

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