get_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of genuinely useful context beyond that — that connectivity is not the same as active execution — but says nothing about whether the result is a snapshot, cached, or what each mode returns.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but the list of resources is comma-spliced into one clause and the trailing worker caveat reads as an afterthought rather than an integrated point.

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 multi-mode tool with two undocumented optional parameters and no output schema, the description should indicate what each call shape returns. It does not, so an agent knows the tool's topic but not how to drive it or what to expect back.

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 both parameters are optional with no documentation. The phrase 'session state, or task state' faintly implies the two parameters, but the description never states what each one selects, what happens when both are omitted or both are supplied, or which takes precedence.

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 names several concrete resources (server health, MCP/skill catalogs, session state, task state), but bundles them into one sprawling 'get' with no indication of how the mode is selected or how it differs from the sibling select_mcp_or_skills, which overlaps with 'available MCP/skill catalogs'.

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 guidance at all: nothing says when to call this versus wait_for_message or get_message, nor when to supply task_id, session_id, or neither. The closing caveat 'A connected worker is not necessarily executing a task' is an interpretation hint, not a usage rule.

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