zelinqa_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool is read-only and that it is required after interrupted calls or conflicts, plus a reconciliation prerequisite. However, it does not cover other behavioral traits such as idempotency, error behavior, or rate limits, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the read-only guarantee and the required usage condition. Every sentence earns its place and there is no waste.

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 that an output schema exists and the input schema fully documents the single parameter, the description covers the essential action, safety profile, and workflow trigger. It is nearly complete for this tool, though some operational details like conflict resolution specifics could add more context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'conversation' parameter thoroughly, including that it is a unique business name and not a session ID. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.

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+resource: 'Refresh progress and the pending question.' It distinguishes itself somewhat from siblings by focusing on status/progress refresh rather than asking the next question or adjusting state. It does not explicitly name alternatives like zelinqa_next_question, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool: after an interrupted call or conflict, and before sending another answer. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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