get_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning a 'formatted status summary' and describes the contents, but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, safe, or has any side effects. While 'get' implies a read, the absence of explicit safety or side-effect disclosure keeps this at a minimal viable level.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The bullet list and 'Returns' line are structured efficiently, with every sentence contributing information. No redundancy or filler is present, making it exemplary in structure.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the dashboard contents, and the return type. Given the simple nature of the tool, there are no significant gaps in context. The existing output schema likely covers return details, so no further elaboration is needed.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds value by describing the default scope (issues by stage, recent notes), which is more than the schema provides. Baseline 4 is appropriate because the parameter count is zero and the description is clear about what the dashboard includes.

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's purpose: 'Get an overview of vault status: issues by stage and recent notes.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('vault status') and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_issues or list_notes by providing an aggregated dashboard. The bullet points further clarify the exact scope.

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 clear context by framing it as a 'quick dashboard' for checking status, implying use when a broad overview is needed rather than detailed issue/note queries. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusions seen in high-scoring examples.

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