status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose non-obvious behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, output format, potential sensitive information disclosure (beyond the parameter description in the schema), or any requirements. The 'Show' verb implies read-only, but additional transparency is lacking.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no redundant or filler words. It earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what the returned status looks like and how to interpret it. The description is adequate for a simple status check but lacks details about return values or the meaning of 'status'. Given the tool's low complexity, the gaps are not severe.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The parameter includeAgentDetails is fully described in the schema, including its default and disclosure risk. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, but no additional explanation is necessary given the schema coverage.

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 ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource: terminal backend and Claude process status. It distinguishes itself from sibling session-focused tools by focusing on process/backend status rather than session management. However, it could more precisely clarify the relationship to managed Remote Control 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 phrase 'relevant to managed Remote Control sessions' implies a context for use, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_claude_sessions or get_claude_session. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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