set_agent_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a mutation (setting status) but does not explain side effects, overwrite behavior, success/failure responses, or required permissions. The description is too sparse for a mutation 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 sentence of 8 words efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without wasted words. Structure is ideal for a simple tool with basic parameters.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is adequate for a basic understanding but lacks completeness regarding agent must be running (though implied), error scenarios, and return values. It is minimally viable.

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 schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints (e.g., valid status values, length limits) beyond the schema's minimal descriptions. Baseline 3 applies because 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?

The description clearly identifies the action as setting an explicit status text for an agent. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_agent_status.

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 states the tool is for running agents, implying a prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_mode or get_agent_status. No exclusions or context for decision-making.

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