get_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read, and it lists what information is returned. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, nor does it disclose any potential errors or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the return fields. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description enumerates the specific items returned (server version, project-open state, file path, CPU, version, build state), which tells an agent what to expect. It does not specify data types or formats, but for a status tool without an output schema, this is sufficient for basic invocation. It could mention that the output is a summary, but it is otherwise complete.

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 is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-level detail because none is needed; the baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to augment.

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?

States a clear, specific action: 'Get the current session status' and enumerates the exact data returned (server version, open project, file path, CPU, version, build state). This is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like open_project or build_project, which perform different actions.

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 implies this is a read-only status query for the current session, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any preconditions. Given the sibling set, no other tool retrieves session-level status, so usage is somewhat self-evident, but the description offers no explicit guidance.

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