ops_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the exact content scope (orphan lease/terminal hints, cleanup counters) and explicitly stating what is excluded (secrets, tokens, full transcripts). This is valuable beyond annotations, though it does not discuss rate limits or auth, which are less critical for a read-only status 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a critical privacy caveat. Each sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague language. This is an excellent example of minimal, high-density description.

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 read-only status tool with a provided output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, content scope, and exclusions. The output schema handles return structure, so the description does not need to explain field formats. The privacy disclosure adds completeness by setting clear expectations about what the tool will not return, making it complete for its complexity.

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, and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 the tool reports operational status with specific details: orphan lease/terminal hints and last cleanup counters, and explicitly notes it does not reveal secrets, tokens, or full transcripts. This content scope distinguishes it from sibling status tools like workspace_status and terminal_status. The implied verb 'get' is acceptable for a status tool.

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 implies usage as a status query for operational metrics (orphan leases, cleanup counters) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Given the presence of multiple status tools (workspace_status, terminal_status), the lack of comparative guidance is a clear gap. The context is discoverable from the resource name but not explicitly contrasted.

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