cs_agent_status

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by listing the specific state dimensions inspected (lifecycle, queue, pending permission, last error, runtime state). It aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, and does not introduce any contradiction. It doesn't detail the return structure but the annotations lower the burden.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence defines the scope, the second provides usage context. There is no wasted text.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only, no output schema). The description covers what it does and when to use it, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Given the low complexity and rich annotations, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of the single agentId parameter, including its format and provenance ('Visible managed agent id returned by create or list'). The description does not add parameter-specific details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and enumerates the aspects (lifecycle, queue, pending permission, last error, runtime state), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cs_agent_create, cs_agent_send, and cs_agent_cancel. It also states its role in diagnosing a delegated task, making its purpose 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it to diagnose a delegated task before deciding to wait, respond to permission, cancel, or retry.' This connects to probable sibling actions and provides clear decision context, effectively guiding the agent on when to invoke this tool vs. other operations.

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