Show case status

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description explains nuanced behavior: what counts as stale, that comment/format/method-setting changes are facts rather than staleness, how run staleness differs, and what gate means. This gives an agent substantial context for interpreting results correctly.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining detail is dense but relevant to interpreting the returned status fields. It is appropriately sized for a status tool with no output schema, though the second paragraph is quite packed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return semantics, and it does: brief_stated, stale_files, inputs, runs, per-run stale state, and gate are all defined with enough context to interpret them. For a complex case-status tool, this is complete enough for an agent to call and understand it.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It identifies yaml_path as the problem YAML and adds the important path-resolution rule that relative paths start at the work folder, which is meaningful beyond the bare string schema.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: shows the status of a problem YAML case, including brief, input hashes, earlier runs, and staleness. It explicitly says it changes nothing, and the scope is clearly case-level rather than run-level, distinguishing it from siblings like run_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 description implies when this is useful by enumerating case-level status fields and noting that it changes nothing, but it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of run_status, show_problem, or other status tools. Usage is inferable but not routed with alternatives or exclusions.

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