agents_now

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses data provenance (reads actual tool calls and test output, not agent self-reports), a time window (last 2 hours), and ordering (newest first). It does not cover pagination, limits, or the shape of the session ID returned.

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 core capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the provenance note and the usage hint. The first sentence is long and list-heavy, but every clause adds distinct information about returned fields rather than restating the name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the returned data (fields, statuses, test standing) and the data source. It is nearly complete for a zero-parameter read tool, lacking only edge-case coverage such as what an empty result means or how the session ID should be consumed.

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 tool takes zero parameters (empty object schema), so there is no parameter meaning to convey. Per the rubric this is the baseline 4 for a parameterless tool.

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 resource (what coding agents on this computer are doing) with concrete output fields (project, working/waiting/finished/stopped status, latest step, test standing) and a scope (last 2 hours, newest first). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like recap or today, which likely also summarize agent activity.

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?

It gives explicit usage triggers ("what are my agents doing?") and points to the downstream use case of finding a session ID for other tools. There is no "when-not-to-use" or direct naming of an alternative sibling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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