council_status

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

The description simply states 'report,' which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation but adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotation already conveys. It does not disclose what 'readiness' entails, whether it is costly to invoke, or any other operational 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and key subjects, making it easy to scan and understand.

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, parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but does not clarify the report's format or the specific meaning of 'readiness.' It leaves some ambiguity about what consumers can expect from the returned status.

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, and the schema is empty. The description is not required to elaborate on parameter semantics. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 ('Report') and clearly identifies the three resources covered (local history, index, and runtime readiness). It meaningfully distinguishes this from sibling tools like index_workspace or search_history, which perform actions rather than report status.

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 implies using this tool to check the status of local history, index, and runtime readiness, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions. It is adequate but lacks direct comparative context.

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