program_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 disclosing behavior. It does not mention output format, side effects, required permissions, or what the '17 thành phần' refers to. The metaphorical language adds no concrete behavioral detail.

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, which is concise in length, but it is not front-loaded with useful information. The metaphor does not 'earn its place' because it fails to communicate the tool's purpose clearly.

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 no annotations, and the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain what the 17 components are, what 'built' and 'waiting to fill the gap' mean in concrete terms, or what the output schema contains. For a status tool, this is critically insufficient.

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 schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter information, but since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 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 is metaphorical and vague: 'Bức tranh 17 thành phần: cái nào đã dựng, cái nào đang chờ lấp khoảng trống.' It implies a status overview of 17 components but does not clearly state the tool's action (e.g., 'Returns status of program components') or specify what those components are. It is not a precise verb+resource statement and offers no differentiation from 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 any alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, conditions, or typical scenarios. The description is entirely silent on usage context.

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