get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only 'get' operation, but does not mention whether it modifies state, requires specific permissions, or what side effects (if any) occur. It also does not explain how sessionId is used or what the response contains, leaving the agent with incomplete behavioral expectations.

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 conveys the core purpose. It is concise without being wasteful, though it could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness.

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?

The tool has a simple interface (one parameter, no output schema), so the description need not be elaborate. However, it lacks context about what the expected output looks like, how sessionId factors into status retrieval, and when this tool is most useful. Given the sibling tools in a session-management context, some additional context would improve completeness.

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 input schema provides full coverage of the single parameter (sessionId) with a description ('Session ID'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current project progress and task status'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent_status and get_context_health. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings, and the name 'get_status' is somewhat generic without the description.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_agent_status, get_context_health, or read_project. The description simply states what the tool does, with no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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