CoDesign Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds beyond that by specifying what information is returned (config and status) and that it should be used first. This provides useful behavioral context not covered by annotations.

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 only two sentences. The first sentence states the tool's output, and the second provides usage guidance. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains what it returns (config and status) and when to use it. It could be slightly more specific about the exact fields in the output, but it is sufficient for an AI agent.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The description does not need to add parameter info, but it could implicitly state that the tool takes no arguments. However, the empty input schema makes this clear, so no deduction.

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 returns MCP server config (profile path, idle settings) and current browser/login status. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from siblings like codesign_login and codesign_logout by explicitly suggesting use 'first to verify whether the user has logged in.'

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 explicitly says 'Use this first to verify whether the user has logged in,' providing a clear when-to-use instruction. It implies that other tools are for login/logout, thus giving guidance on alternatives.

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