get_event_detail_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the computed metrics (live events, events with details by status, without details, coverage percentage) and lists the return dictionary fields. While it doesn't explicitly say 'read-only,' the status-oriented language and the verb 'get' imply no side effects. It could add a note on permissions or side effects, but the lack of such is not a major gap for a status tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short explanatory paragraph, a usage line, and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, and the front-loaded main clause ensures quick comprehension.

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 status tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use it in a workflow, and what it returns. The output schema formalizes the return structure, so the description's explanation of the dictionary fields is sufficient and even redundant in a helpful way.

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, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already shows (an empty object). Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; no further parameter explanation is needed.

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 opens with 'Get coverage metrics for the event detail generation pipeline,' clearly identifying the specific resource and the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_events_for_detail_generation by focusing on status instead of fetching work items, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to see how much event-detail work remains before deciding how many batches of get_events_for_detail_generation to run.' This names the alternative tool and provides clear decision context, satisfying the dimension fully.

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