ouroboros_lineage_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Query' implies a read-only behavior and the return list clarifies the expected outcome, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, permissions, or error behavior.

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 two sentences: a focused action verb followed by a concise list of return fields. Every word contributes value, and it is perfectly front-loaded.

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 simple tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does and what it returns. It doesn't specify error handling or detailed lifecycle context, but it is largely complete for this use case.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for lineage_id with a clear description. The tool description adds little beyond naming the resource as an 'evolutionary lineage', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Query' and the resource 'evolutionary lineage', and lists specific return values (generation count, status, ontology evolution, convergence progress). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling status tools, which prevents a top score, but the resource is distinct enough.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling status tools like ouroboros_session_status or ouroboros_project_status. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools.

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