status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating 'no Git or filesystem writes, no network', adding specific behavioral detail beyond the boolean hints. It also discloses the return tuple structure, providing extra transparency.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, read-only disclosure, return format, and parameter note. No redundancy or filler.

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 is simple (1 optional param) with strong annotations and an output schema (also described in text). The description covers what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it differs from siblings. Nothing important 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?

The schema covers the single parameter fully with its own description, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter note ('defaults to detected repo') mirrors the schema's 'Empty auto-detects', adding no new meaning beyond what's already provided.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Report') and lists exact resources: hook install state, local envelope count, and Matrix Scroll config. It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly excluding signature checks and directing to verify_envelope or verify_pr_range.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call first in a new repo before any verify/sign tool') and explicit when-not-to-use with named alternatives ('Do not use for signature checks — call verify_envelope or verify_pr_range instead'). This fully covers usage context.

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