opencdr_rules_runtime_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: an accepted write may still be propagating and only 'verified' counts as active, plus mode-dependent operation (fleet vs. core). These are strong additions, but the return shape and whether the read can block on propagation are undisclosed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the read scope and the activation caution before the mode-specific parameter note. Every sentence carries information; only the fragment 'Only verified means active' is slightly elliptical and could be tightened.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no nested objects), and the description covers the critical conceptual gotcha of activation state and the mode split. With no output schema, however, the description provides no insight into what the response contains — generation identifiers, per-agent statuses, timestamps — leaving the agent to inspect results blind.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single nullable agent_id parameter, so the description must carry the load — and it does, stating that fleet mode requires agent_id explicitly while core mode leaves it unset. That is meaningful guidance the schema's anyOf/null default cannot convey, though it does not say what an agent_id value looks like or where to obtain it.

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 leads with a specific verb and scope: 'Read stored and evaluator-observed generations,' which maps to reading rule runtime state and distinguishes two views (stored vs. evaluator-observed). It is clear about what is read, though the term 'generations' is domain jargon that a newcomer must infer means rule-set versions; the tool name itself supplies that context.

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?

It gives real interpretive guidance ('do not infer activation from a successful upsert or release application') that steers the agent here rather than assuming upstream writes took effect. However, it never states when to choose this over adjacent reads such as opencdr_rules_get or opencdr_rules_list, so sibling selection remains implicit.

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