status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core visible effect — showing a status line in the overlay — and gives an example. However, it does not explain whether the status is transient, overwrites prior text, or is cleared by tools like done.

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 is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the example adds clarity without unnecessary bulk. Every element earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is near-adequate. However, without annotations or lifecycle details, an agent does not know whether the status persists, gets replaced, or should be cleared after task completion.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates by clarifying that the text is the agent status line content and by providing an example. It does not explain formatting expectations or whether the text should be concise, leaving the agent to infer from maxLength and the example.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it displays one line of agent status on the overlay status bar, with a concrete example ('수정 중: Button.tsx'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools like open, wait, or screenshot, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The example implies it is for showing progress-related status, but the agent is left to infer usage context.

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