local_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the cost profile ('Cheap -- no model inference') and enumerates what the call reports. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or failure modes of the probe itself, so a small gap remains.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a cheapness note, then labeled Args/Returns. Structure is clean and every line earns its place, though the Args/Returns block is slightly redundant given the schema and output schema already exist.

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 single-parameter status tool with an output schema already present, the description is complete: it explains purpose, timing, cost, the parameter, and the shape of the result. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does with 'workspace_root: Absolute path to the repository root.' That adds the format/semantics (absolute path) the schema lacks, though it is the only parameter and needs little elaboration.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Check that local delegation is actually available and see what it has saved'), so the agent knows this is a status/health probe rather than an action. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the siblings local_edit, local_explain, and local_verify, relying on the name to differentiate.

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 states exactly when to call it: 'once at the start of a session if you intend to delegate, and whenever a local tool fails unexpectedly.' This is explicit when-to-use guidance with a triggering condition, leaving nothing to inference.

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