Local workspace status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it performs no generation, operates entirely locally, and never uploads data, which matters for privacy-sensitive users. It stops short of describing cost or latency, but it is well above the annotation baseline.

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 with the verb and subject front-loaded, followed by a compact colon-delimited list of what is reported. No filler, no redundancy, and the most important scope qualifier ("without generating anything") appears before the detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully serves as a stand-in by enumerating the reported signals (freshness, source mix, score, privacy settings). For a single-optional-parameter read-only tool with annotations, that is nearly sufficient; only the boundary against the other diagnostic siblings is left unstated.

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 is one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Local workspace root. Defaults to the current directory"). The description never mentions the workspace argument, so it adds nothing beyond the schema, which puts it at the baseline of 3 for fully documented parameters.

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 ("local workspace state") and enumerates what that state includes: freshness (fresh/stale/missing), source mix, score, privacy settings. The phrase "without generating anything" separates it from generation siblings like orangepro_start or orangepro_update_graph. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent read-only siblings such as orangepro_doctor, orangepro_stats, or orangepro_graph_score, so it falls short of 5.

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?

"Without generating anything" implies the usage context (a pre-flight/read-only check before generation), but usage is only implied. No explicit when-to-use statement and no alternatives named, even though orangepro_doctor, orangepro_graph_score and orangepro_stats plausibly overlap with the reported fields.

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