claude_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires permissions, how recent 'recent logs' are, if there are rate limits, or what format the output takes. The description is minimal beyond stating what data is retrieved.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get complete Claude status') and specifies the components retrieved. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what data is retrieved but lacks details on output format, permissions, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of retrieving multiple status components, more context would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools when the description is adequate for the task.

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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('complete Claude status'), specifying what information is retrieved (config, MCP servers, session, and recent logs). It distinguishes from siblings like 'claude_config' (only config) and 'claude_session_info' (only session), but doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'claude_config', 'claude_session_info', or 'claude_mcp_status'. The description implies it provides comprehensive status, but doesn't state when this aggregated view is preferable over individual tools.

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