status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key safety trait: 'Reads the whole collection and both lanes, writes nothing.' It also implies a full scan, but says nothing about cost, locking, or whether repeated calls are safe during an in-flight apply.

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 with no filler, and the subject of the report is front-loaded before the read-only guarantee. Every clause contributes either scope or safety 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?

An output schema exists and there are no parameters, so the description only needs to frame the tool's role and behavior, which it largely does. The one real gap is the missing boundary against the `plan` sibling.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies the tool takes no scoping arguments and always reports over the whole collection and both lanes.

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 concrete report: entry counts in the Traktor collection, file counts in the two lanes, and projected run counts. That is specific enough to act on, but it never distinguishes this from the `plan` sibling, which plausibly also reports what a run would do.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. An agent must infer that `status` is the read-only inspection step versus `plan`, `apply`, or `purge`, but the description never states that routing rule.

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