Show relay status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the active:false behavior when nothing is owned and repeats 'Read-only; it does not touch the VM,' which is redundant with annotations. The added context about the active flag is useful, but overall the description provides only marginal behavioral detail beyond the annotations, earning a 3.

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 long sentence but front-loaded with the primary output (owned VM lease) and then lists the rest. It is efficient, avoids fluff, and every phrase adds information. It could be slightly more structured, but it is appropriately sized and informative.

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, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is quite complete. It enumerates all the fields the agent can expect (lease details, staging state, evidence path, project directory, service origin, environment, and active flag). The only missing element is the exact return format (e.g., JSON structure), but that is not critical for a status tool and the description suffices for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. No additional parameter information is required, so this dimension is satisfied.

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 clearly states the tool shows the session's owned VM lease, staging state, evidence path, project directory, VM service origin, and selected environment, plus an active:false indicator. It uses a specific verb ('show') and identifies a distinct resource (relay status) with a detailed list of contents, making its purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like relay_probe or relay_console_resolve, though the read-only inspection nature is evident from context.

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 the tool is for inspecting the current session state before or after operations, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer from the read-only nature and the listed contents. This is adequate but lacks the explicit 'when to use' framing that would merit a 4.

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