status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that takeover hands control to the human and that control cannot be reclaimed through this tool, only by human release. It clearly implies the default operation is read-only ('Report'), covering the main behavioral traits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds essential information: what is reported, when to use takeover, and the critical limitation. No filler 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?

For a simple read-only status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description lists exactly what is reported (session, mode, control lease) and covers the only behavioral nuance (takeover). It could be slightly clearer about what 'session' refers to, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema already describes the takeover parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds practical context by explaining when to pass true ('before they act in the dashboard') and reinforces the irreversible nature. This goes beyond the schema's bare definition.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and names three concrete resources: session, mode, and control lease. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_mode or click, which perform actions rather than report state.

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 gives clear context for when to pass takeover: true ('before they act in the dashboard'). It also states a key limitation ('Control comes back only when the human releases it'), which helps the agent avoid misusing the option. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but none directly compete with this status-reporting role.

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