omnistate_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read with no side effects, but the description never explicitly confirms read-only behavior, permissions, or whether calling it mutates transaction state; the list of returned fields is helpful but is return-value content, not behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by an enumerated list of return fields. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the enumeration of expected fields (transaction details, git head, clearance state) is doing real work. Terms like 'commit clearance state' and 'OMNISTATE' remain undefined, which leaves a little ambiguity, but for a no-arg status probe this is close to sufficient.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing to document and the description does not invent or misdescribe inputs.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('OMNISTATE status') and enumerates the concrete data returned (active transaction details, git head, commit clearance state). This clearly reads as the read-only counterpart to the mutation-oriented siblings (begin, step, finish, abort), though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus omnistate_audit, omnistate_step, or omnistate_inspect_diff, nor any prerequisite such as needing an active transaction. The agent must infer that this is a polling/inspection tool from the verb alone.

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