mission_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it enumerates the default return content (goal, progress, current item in full, failures) and discloses that the full mode scales with the checklist. It does not explicitly state that this is a safe read-only call or describe cost/latency beyond the implicit 'not after every run', leaving a small gap given zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then handles usage and the parameter in a tight sequence. The closing clause ('which is why it is a separate call') is somewhat self-justifying filler, but overall the length is proportionate to the information conveyed.

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 one-optional-param read tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what the two modes return, when to invoke each, and how the tool relates to execute_plan. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 0% for the single boolean 'full', but the description compensates well, explaining that default yields the compact block while full=true returns every item with id and status and is the only mode that grows with the list. Meaning beyond the bare boolean is clearly added.

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?

Opening sentence names the resource and scope ('where the active mission stands') with a concrete read verb implied, and the description explicitly distinguishes it from execute_plan by noting the default output is the same compact block that tool already returns. An agent can tell this apart from mission_start/mission_mark/mission_finish without any schema lookup.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('call it when you have lost the thread'), explicit when-not ('not after every run'), and a separate condition for the full=true mode ('before deciding a mission is done'). Alternative-driven reasoning is fully spelled out.

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