cdeck_status

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

With no annotations, the description has to carry the load. It usefully discloses that the response includes 'acks' and what they mean operationally, and 'last updated' implies a read-only status call. It does not state that it is non-mutating, whether polling is expected, or any auth/pairing requirement.

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?

Two tight sentences with the payload described first and the actionable guidance second; nothing is padded. The density is bought partly with undefined jargon, which costs a little clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the ack semantics are covered. But the single undocumented parameter and the unexplained deck/TV model leave real gaps for a first-time caller.

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 has one parameter, 'name', at 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it — so whether it selects a deck, a paired TV, or defaults to the only active pairing is left to guesswork. This is the main place the description needed to compensate and does not.

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?

Names the concrete resource and payload: the deck's last-updated timestamp and the item ids the viewer has acked on the TV. An agent can tell this is a status/read tool, though the domain jargon ('deck', 'TV') is never defined and it doesn't contrast with cdeck_list.

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 gives a workflow directive for the output: 'Use acks to complete/clear those items in their source before the next push,' which implies this is checked before pushing. But it never says when to call cdeck_status versus cdeck_list or cdeck_schema, nor any prerequisite (e.g. pairing via cdeck_pair).

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