status_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states basic purpose and omits behavioral traits such as authentication needs, error handling, or what happens with non-existent statuses.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose, with no wasted words. It could benefit from slightly more context but remains concise.

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 simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details on return format or boundaries. It fully states the tool's core function but nothing more.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter fully described). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Numeric status ID.' Baseline 3 applies since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get ancestors and descendants of a status (thread context)' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('ancestors and descendants of a status'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like status_get (single status) and timeline tools.

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 usage for retrieving thread context but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like status_get, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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