deadman_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; 'Check' implies a read-only operation and it discloses the core return semantic (days until release). It says nothing about authorization requirements, what the status looks like at zero or after release, or whether checking affects the timer, which matters for a safety-critical switch.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the return meaning second; no filler, nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 tool this is close to sufficient, and it compensates for the missing output schema by naming the return value. However, it omits the possible status states, what a released switch reports, and how it relates to deadman_checkin, leaving an agent to guess at the edges.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies the target vault/agent is implicit in the caller's identity.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check dead man's switch status') and adds the key semantic ('days until vault access is released to designated contacts'), so an agent knows exactly what is being read. It stops short of differentiating from the sibling deadman_checkin, which is easy to confuse with a status query.

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 statement of when to use this versus deadman_checkin or what conditions make status checking appropriate. With a near-identically named sibling in the toolset, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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