context_status

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

The verb 'Inspect' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the listed status fields hint at what the agent can expect to learn. However, there are no annotations, and the description does not disclose any edge behavior such as whether the context must be bound to a host, what happens when space_ref is invalid, or how the optional refs affect resolution.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes by identifying the action, the resource, and the exact status attributes returned.

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 tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It tells the agent what will be inspected but not how to identify the target context, which optional refs matter, or when this status check is preferable to sibling context tools. The output schema may document return values, but the input side remains under-specified.

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%, yet the description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning. 'Context Space' loosely maps to space_ref, but company_ref, project_ref, and session_ref are completely unexplained, and there is no guidance on how they scope the status request.

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 a specific verb, 'Inspect', a specific resource, 'Context Space', and enumerates the concrete status dimensions: size, revision, scope, and host binding. This clearly communicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling context tools such as context_read or context_search.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. With siblings like context_read, context_search, and context_checkpoint in the same domain, an agent is given no basis for deciding when context_status is the right tool versus those alternatives.

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