Run status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that it takes no input and touches no browser (implying a safe, side-effect-free read), and explains host-dependent behavior (MCP Apps pane vs plain text with a `Live view:` address to relay). It does not mention rate limits, caching, or freshness guarantees for the status data.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the middle stretches into a long, loosely punctuated run-on ('problems so far and the newest cards, and the clicking it saved with what that figure is based on') that is hard to parse. Information density is high but scannability suffers.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does the work of describing the returned content (session objectives, task, findings by severity, coverage, live view address, guided-check progress). This is nearly complete for a no-arg status tool, though output field shapes remain informal rather than structured.

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 and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly confirms no input is required, leaving no ambiguity about arguments.

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 states a specific verb and resource (show run status: session objectives, findings by severity, coverage, live view address) and enumerates what is included, which lets an agent distinguish it from most siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling scout_status_poll, whose name suggests near-identical purpose.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: call it when the user wants to watch or asks how the run is going, and it clarifies the guided-check variant. No exclusions or routing between this and scout_status_poll are given, so the when-not side is missing.

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