Coordination status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what information is returned (online status, running tasks, locked paths, etc.), implying a read-only operation. It does not mention whether data is real-time or cached, but for a status tool this is minor. Overall, sufficiently transparent.

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?

Two sentences: first lists the tool's output, second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with the most important 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?

The description lists all the categories of information returned (online agents, running tasks, locked paths, tasks, notes). With no output schema, this is fairly complete. It could be slightly more explicit about the output format (e.g., returns a summary object), but for a simple status check it is adequate.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it correctly omits any.

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 provides 'one-stop situational awareness' and lists specific items: who is online, running tasks, locked paths, open tasks, and unread notes. This distinguishes it from siblings like coop_reset, ag_delegate, or presence_set, which are more focused.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this before starting work or editing files so you do not collide with the other agent.' This gives clear when-to-use context and the rationale, making it easy for an agent to decide.

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