signals

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description compensates fully by stating the operation is read-only, changes nothing, and returns up to 5 open signals with pattern/evidence/projected savings. It also documents the cwd resolution behavior when omitted. This is more behavioral transparency than most tool descriptions provide.

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 compact, front-loaded with core purpose, and every sentence adds value: usage conditions, return shape, side-effect caveat, and cwd behavior. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity — one optional parameter, no required parameters, an output schema present, and read-only semantics — the description covers all needed context: when to call, what it returns, that it has no side effects, and how the parameter behaves.

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?

While schema description coverage is 0%, the description does compensates for the single cwd parameter by explaining the default resolution behavior. It does not fully specify what the cwd value means when provided, but the parameter name and the fallback explanation are sufficient for an agent to use it correctly in most cases.

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 identifies the action ('Open workflow-efficiency Signals') and the exact resource scope ('current project and the caller's own account'). It also distinguishes itself from generic status queries by limiting use to cost/efficiency questions, making it easy for an agent to tell apart from siblings like get_session or search_sessions.

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 provides explicit conditions for use: when the user asks why a session/project is expensive, when workflow efficiency issues are implied, or when ReclaimLLM Signals are explicitly requested. It also explicitly excludes general status checks, giving the agent clear and actionable guidance.

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