enoch_status

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

Annotations already confirm readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and open world behavior. The description adds value by listing the data categories returned (dispatch safety, flags, counts, active items, warnings, conflicts), which helps agents understand the scope of the status report beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Full system status') and lists key data areas. It is concise with no redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for readability.

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 one undocumented parameter, no output schema, and 38 sibling tools, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. It does not specify the output format, whether results are paginated, or how the parameter affects the response. Given the complexity of the tool ecosystem, more detail is needed.

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 sole parameter 'refresh_worker' (boolean with default true) has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention or explain it, leaving the agent without understanding of its effect (e.g., whether it forces a cache refresh). This is a critical gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 'Full system status' and lists specific data areas (dispatch safety, flags, counts, active items, warnings, conflicts). However, it does not differentiate from numerous sibling tools like enoch_overview or enoch_core_health, which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. With 38 sibling tools, the description should indicate specific scenarios (e.g., 'Use for a comprehensive dashboard vs. enoch_core_health for component-level checks'). The lack of usage context makes it hard for an agent to select correctly.

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