status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' sentence is largely redundant with structured data. The one piece of genuine added context is that it surfaces 'problems with the command that fixes each' — implying it reports remediation commands without executing them, which usefully separates it from take_fix. It does not say what the output looks like or whether discovery has side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core action and then enumerates the inspected facets. It is dense but every clause carries information, with only 'Read-only' arguably wasted since annotations already cover it.

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?

With zero parameters, a closed schema, full annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what is reported — and it does so by enumerating logbook selection, project counts, per-tool rule/MCP registration, and problems with fixes. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters with a fully closed schema (additionalProperties: false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing any input discussion.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it checks this machine's Waypoint install and enumerates what it inspects (logbook discovery, project counts, per-tool rule and MCP registration, problems plus the fixing command). That is clearly distinct from siblings like take_fix, read_chart, log_watch, and eod_report, though the generic name 'status' does no work on its own and the description never names a sibling to contrast against.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: this is evidently the diagnostic entry point, and 'problems with the command that fixes each' hints that take_fix is the follow-up action. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement, so the agent must infer the diagnostic-then-fix workflow from the sibling list.

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