Refresh AI Coach status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context about re-reading mascot state for the dashboard, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error behavior, staleness, or caching. This is acceptable for a simple read tool but does not exceed the annotation baseline significantly.

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 short, front-loaded sentences contain the essential purpose and read-only nature with no filler. The description is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. The schema covers locale semantics, annotations cover safety, and the output schema handles return values, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this correctly.

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%, with the single optional locale parameter already documented in detail, including its BCP 47 pattern and how the dashboard passes hostContext.locale. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 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 description names a specific verb ('Re-read'), a specific resource ('AI Coach mascot state'), and a clear context ('for the dashboard view'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_ai_coach_note or report_ai_coach_activity. The explicit 'Read-only' also prevents confusion with mutation-style coach tools.

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?

The phrase 'for the dashboard view' gives a clear intended context, implying this tool is used when the dashboard needs refreshed mascot state. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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