sense_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only status check, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The phrase 'Daemon health, presence, last collect meta' implies informational use but does not clearly disclose behavior beyond that.

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 extremely terse, at five words, which makes it efficient but under-specified. It lacks a subject-verb structure and reads as a fragment rather than a clear sentence. While it is front-loaded, its brevity sacrifices clarity, making it only partially effective.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, the description is still cryptic, leaving terms like 'presence' and 'last collect meta' undefined. It provides minimal context for an agent to understand the tool's role, though it is adequate for a very simple status endpoint.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema coverage is vacuously 100%, and the description does not need to elaborate on input. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate because no parameters exist and the description doesn't introduce confusion.

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 is a noun phrase listing 'Daemon health, presence, last collect meta,' which hints at the tool's purpose but lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'return.' It does not clearly state what the tool does with these items, making the purpose somewhat vague. It also does not differentiate itself from sibling tools beyond the implied system status subject.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither states conditions for use nor mentions any exclusions or sibling tools. The context signals show sibling tools like 'active_now' and 'agent_sessions,' but the description does not help the agent decide between them.

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