agent_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. 'Enforced operator policy' adds a real hint that this reports constraints the agent must obey, but it doesn't say whether the policy is static, per-session, or what happens if violated.

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 short clause with no filler, and the key term (capabilities/policy) is front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the compactness comes at the cost of specificity captured in other dimensions.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only place an agent can learn what this returns. It lists three noun categories but not their shape, size, or whether calling it has any cost or side effects on the agent loop, leaving the agent unable to judge relevance confidently.

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 and the schema is closed (additionalProperties: false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 phrase names the information surfaced (provenance, capabilities, operator policy), which hints at an introspection/status tool, but 'Catalog' is ambiguous as verb-vs-noun and the description never says whose status is being reported (the agent's own build, or the session). It also gives no differentiation from siblings like agent_inspect or session_info.

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 rather than agent_inspect, session_info, or the preview/apply tools. An agent must guess whether this is a prerequisite check before agent_apply or just a diagnostic read.

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