unity_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait (never acquires the lock), which is essential for safe usage. It doesn't mention error conditions or output format, but since an output schema exists, that information is available elsewhere.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a key qualifier. Every word earns its place; there is zero waste.

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, zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and explicitly states a critical non-behavior. No additional context is needed.

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 the parameter-semantics burden is minimal. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and no gaps are present.

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 function: it reports who holds the machine lock. It also adds a critical qualifier ('Never takes the lock') that distinguishes it from actions that might acquire the lock. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to check lock status without acquiring the lock. It explicitly says 'Never takes the lock,' which serves as a safety guideline. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but among sibling tools it's clearly the only status-checking tool.

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