agent_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses useful behavior beyond a simple 'returns status': it includes a short terminal tail, that include_brief returns the exact injected brief, and why hive stores that copy (appended system prompt appears in no transcript). This gives the agent meaningful expectations about privacy and provenance.

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 the core purpose, with the include_brief explanation earning its place by clarifying why a non-obvious behavior exists. There is no filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 read-only status tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential concepts: identification, terminal tail, and the brief-return option. It doesn't detail exact return fields or unknown-agent behavior, but the schema fills parameter gaps and the tool is simple enough that this is adequate.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters and their constraints. The description adds some context around name vs agent_id and the purpose of include_brief, but it mostly repeats or lightly reinforces what the schema already states. The baseline of 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: it returns detailed status for one agent, named or by agent_id. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agent_list (listing) and agent_output by focusing on status plus terminal tail and optional brief. The scope is unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you need status for a single named agent, including terminal tail or the original brief. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like agent_list or agent_output, nor does it state when not to use it.

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