agent_status

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds real value by disclosing what the response contains (terminal tail, optional brief) and the non-obvious rationale that hive stores the brief because an appended system prompt appears in no transcript. However, readOnlyHint=false sits in mild tension with a description that portrays a pure inspection call, and pagination/return shape are not covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the addressing mechanism, zero filler. The second sentence drifts slightly into hive implementation trivia that an agent doesn't strictly need in order to call the tool, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden; it does so adequately by naming the terminal tail and the optional full brief. Safety semantics are covered by annotations and the parameter surface is fully covered by the schema, so the remaining gaps (full return structure, empty-result behavior) are minor.

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 100%, so name/agent_id/project_id/include_brief are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the name-or-agent_id selector and the meaning of include_brief=true, but adds no syntax, format, or priority detail beyond what the schema states (the 'agent_id wins' precedence lives in the schema, not here). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb+resource pairing ('Detailed status for one agent') plus the selector (name/agent_id) and the distinctive return ('a short tail of its terminal'), which distinguishes it from list-style siblings like agent_list. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so it lands just below the top band.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'one agent, addressed by name' tells the agent this is the single-agent counterpart to agent_list, and include_brief is explained. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or mention of agent_output/agent_message_get as alternatives, so an agent must infer the routing.

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