twining_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. It discloses that it shows counts, warnings, server_version, and storage backend, and clarifies that provisional_decisions is a canonical index count. It does not explicitly state it is read-only or side-effect-free, but the content strongly implies a read-only health check. Since it does not mention any mutating behavior, the absence of explicit safety disclosure is acceptable but not perfect.

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 and front-loads the purpose. It packs specific details (counts, warnings, server_version, storage backend) without verbosity. The note about twining_assemble is relevant and adds value. It is not overly long and each sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly tightened by removing the parenthetical scoped variant detail.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description thoroughly covers what the tool returns, including a human-readable summary and specific metrics. It also explains an important distinction (canonical count) and provides guidance on when to use it relative to siblings. This is complete for a health check tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds meaningful context about exact outputs and the canonical nature of provisional_decisions, which is helpful even though there are no parameters to explain.

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 clearly states it is an 'Overall health check of the Twining state' and lists specific outputs (blackboard entry count, decision counts, graph counts, warnings, server_version, storage backend, summary). It also distinguishes from sibling twining_assemble by noting that twining_assemble includes a status summary and that this tool should be used when 'full detailed health check' is needed, thus differentiating the purpose.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'use this only when you need the full detailed health check' and contrasts with twining_assemble which includes a status summary. It also mentions a scoped variant (twining_triage counts.open.by_kind.decision) for a narrower query, giving clear context on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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