fleet_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the payload shape (status, progress, stuck, model, profile, working directory, worktree, pending_messages) plus the semantic meaning of needs_attention and totals. It does not state read-only/side-effect behavior or data freshness, which are the remaining gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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-loaded with the value proposition and the sibling comparison, then the returned fields, then the actionable field. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description's summary of key fields and the routing guidance make the tool fully callable as-is. Zero params and no annotations leave no unaddressed gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no space on argument syntax.

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 and resource ('The whole fleet in one call: every session, every terminal') and immediately scopes it against the sibling pattern it replaces. An agent can distinguish it from list_sessions and get_session_info without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says 'Prefer this over list_sessions plus a get_session_info per session' and gives the reason (one call, one block of context). This is a direct when-to-use rule with a named alternative, not implied guidance.

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