status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Live coordination picture' implies a real-time read-only aggregate and 'stale items' signals freshness awareness, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, scope, or whether the view is globally aggregated.

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, front-loaded fragment with no wasted words. It is telegraphic but efficient for a status tool, though a complete sentence with a verb would be slightly clearer.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the content categories substitutes reasonably for return-value documentation. It tells an agent what to expect from the response, though it could clarify scope or freshness guarantees.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 expands 'status' into a specific content inventory: agents, claims with intents, integration queue, wait tickets, and stale items. It clearly conveys a live coordination overview, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings like land_status or radar.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as land_status, radar, and check could plausibly overlap, and the description provides no conditions for choosing between them.

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