T3 Code status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking auth and summarizing project/thread status, implying a read-only health check, but does not explicitly state there are no side effects or describe the exact return structure. This is adequate but not highly detailed.

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 two-sentence description is front-loaded: the first sentence defines the tool's purpose and output, the second gives usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable summary of what it returns (running status, auth, project/thread counts) and when to use it. It could be more specific about the output format, but for a simple status tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately says nothing about parameters since there is nothing to configure. No additional semantic 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 explicitly states what the tool does: check the local T3 Code server's running status, auth, and project/thread summaries. This is a specific verb+resource with a clear scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects or list_threads, which focus on individual data retrieval.

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 phrase 'Use this first if anything else fails' gives direct guidance on when to invoke this tool as a first-line diagnostic. While it doesn't enumerate alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an agent to understand its role in troubleshooting.

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