relay_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and does not touch the VM, and describes the active:false scenario. It also enumerates the visible fields, giving a solid picture of the tool's behavior, though it does not mention potential permission requirements or response format.

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, information-dense sentence with no wasted words Tee, but it packs many items into a long run-on structure. While every detail earns its place, the content could be better organized (e.g., bullet-like formatting) for readability. Still, it is concise in the sense of having no 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description is remarkably complete. It lists every category of data shown (VM lease fields, staging state, evidence path, project directory, origin, environment), explains the active:false case, and declares read-only behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 input schema has zero parameters artist with 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. Per the rubric, 0 parameters defaults to a baseline of 4 because the description need not compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and resource (this session's owned VM lease, staging state, project directory, etc.), giving a detailed list of what is displayed. It is definitely distinguishable from the relay tools by its read-only status-reporting nature, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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 provides clear context: this is a status/read tool to inspect session-owned VM lease and related state, and explicitly notes 'Read-only; it does not touch the VM.' It also explains the active:false case when nothing is owned. However, it does not explicitly contrast usage with sibling tools relay or relay_review.

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