a2a_status

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

The description implies a read-only status check via 'snapshot,' but it does not explicitly guarantee no side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries this burden and mostly satisfies it.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey the tool's purpose and recommended usage. No unnecessary details are included.

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 parameterless status tool with an output schema present, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what it does and when to invoke it.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter-level explanation is unnecessary. The baseline score of 4 applies because there is nothing about parameters that needs clarification.

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 identifies the tool as a status snapshot, checking connectivity, turn state, session status, and errors. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that connect, send, leave, validate, or wait for a turn.

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?

It explicitly says the tool is useful to re-orient after a gap in the conversation, giving a clear use case. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the context makes the appropriate scenario clear.

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