guard_status

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds only the content inventory; it does not explain the notable readOnlyHint=false (what state does a "dashboard" mutate?) or whether calling it resets counters such as loop streaks. 'Dashboard' leans toward a passive read but does not explicitly contradict the annotation, so no contradiction is flagged.

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?

Nine words, front-loaded with the category label, no filler or repetition. The telegraphic field list is efficient, though the fragment style ('diff delta', 'loop streaks') costs a little readability.

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?

An output schema exists and there are no parameters, so the bar is low and the description is close to sufficient. The gap is that several listed fields are project-specific jargon an agent cannot interpret, leaving it unsure what the dashboard actually tells 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description has no parameter semantics to carry. Nothing is misleading about the empty schema.

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 identifies the tool as a "Dashboard" and enumerates the telemetry it surfaces (session, diff delta, loop streaks, evidence count, contract size, last verify), so an agent can guess it aggregates run state. However, there is no verb and no statement of what the tool actually does or returns, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like guard_orientation or guard_recall, which likely also summarize state.

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 call this versus the eleven sibling guard_* tools. An agent facing guard_orientation, guard_verify and guard_recall simultaneously gets no signal about which is the orientation entry point and which is the verification step.

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