ensemble_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly describes the output content (version, voices, holdings, bar count, compile status) and behavior when the parameter is omitted. The word 'view' implies read-only, and the description adds context about the merged score compilation check.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and the main usage variation. Every clause adds value with no redundancy.

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 read-only status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the return view includes and how to list sessions. It could potentially mention whether it requires an active session, but that is not essential for basic usage.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (the single parameter's description already states 'Omit to list the sessions'). The tool description repeats this same information, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a short view of a session, listing specific attributes (version, voices, holdings, bar count, compile status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ensemble_report or ensemble_log, and the optional session parameter for listing sessions is clearly described.

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 gives clear context: provide a session name for status, omit it to list sessions. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like ensemble_report or ensemble_read, so it lacks explicit exclusion/alternative guidance.

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