exploration_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds that it returns a coverage map and that goal defaults to 'default'. This is adequate but does not disclose further behavioral traits (e.g., performance, auth limits) beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences front-loaded with the main action. No redundant words. Efficient use of text.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 optional param, no required params, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter behavior, and default. No critical gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'goal' filters by exploration goal and defaults to 'default'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. However, it could be more specific (e.g., possible values, effect of null).

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's purpose: 'Show the strategy-exploration coverage map (explored vs. untried combos).' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_optimize or fetch_data.

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 description mentions the optional goal parameter and its default, but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or comparisons with sibling tools. The context signals indicate many sibling tools, but the description offers no direction on when to choose exploration_status over alternatives.

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