get_cleanup_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only says it gets status, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects), authorization requirements, or what exactly 'cleanup and resource status' covers. This is a significant gap for a monitoring tool.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words. Though very brief, it effectively communicates the core purpose without waste, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 tool has no parameters and a simple purpose, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations and with no output details, it leaves ambiguity about what 'cleanup and resource status' actually includes and how the result is structured. The context is not fully complete, but the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema partially compensate.

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 the schema imposes no burden. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 function: 'Get current cleanup and resource status for monitoring.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cleanup and resource status'), making the purpose unambiguous. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_project or get_current_incarnation because it uniquely targets cleanup and resource status.

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 phrase 'for monitoring' implies the tool is used to observe cleanup and resource state, providing a clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it. There is no guidance on how this tool relates to other get_* tools, so usage guidance is only partially provided.

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