Companion Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what information is returned, whether any side effects occur, or the format of the session details.

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 short sentence with no redundant words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified, and the lack of detail makes it less useful; conciseness alone does not compensate for missing critical information.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description still fails to mention what the inspection returns. For a status tool, agents need to know the result format and behavior, which is entirely absent.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description only names 'cwd' in passing ('for a cwd'). It adds little meaning beyond the variable name itself, failing to explain the parameter's format, optionality, or expected values.

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 uses a specific verb 'Inspect' and identifies the resource 'current companion session' with a scope 'for a cwd', making the core action clear. It differs from sibling tools like companion_send or companion_reset by indicating a read-only action, though it does not explicitly distinguish all siblings.

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, no mention of exclusions or prerequisites. With 17 sibling tools all prefixed 'companion_', the description provides no contextual cues for selection.

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