Status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description needed to add context such as cost, scope of the snapshot, or freshness. Instead it only lists content categories and says nothing about whether it requires an initialized project, whether it is expensive, or whether results reflect on-disk state.

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 short line with no filler, but it is structured as an unpunctuated comma list of nouns rather than a front-loaded statement of what the tool does. Brevity here comes at the cost of readability rather than from disciplined editing.

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 and the safety profile is covered by annotations, so return values need not be described. Still, for a tool whose whole value is orienting an agent in a multi-step workflow, the absence of any usage trigger leaves the definition only minimally complete.

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 100% with a single required project_dir parameter that the schema already documents as an absolute repo root path. The description adds no additional meaning about that parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 enumerates the content the tool surfaces (framework version, wave table, open wave, pending PO issues, backlog, assumed decisions), which lets an agent infer it reports process state. However, it is a bare noun-phrase fragment with no verb such as 'returns' or 'reports', so the purpose is implied rather than stated, and it does not differentiate itself from siblings like check or read_guide.

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 at which point in a workflow an agent should call status rather than check, read_guide, or next_code. The only implicit signal is that it concerns process state, leaving the agent to guess the trigger conditions.

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