Delimit Agent Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description consistently reinforces 'read-only' while adding context beyond annotations: it discloses the underlying backend call (ai.agent_dispatch.get_agent_status), states it returns raw status records rather than aggregates, and clarifies open/closed task semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every line earns its place: purpose sentence, when-to-use, when-not-to-use, sibling contrast, and side effects are cleanly separated into labeled sections. The most decision-relevant information (purpose) is front-loaded, and the structure makes the guidance scannable for an agent.

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 tool with one optional parameter, a present output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers everything needed for correct selection and invocation: purpose, scoping behavior, exclusions, sibling differentiation, and side effects. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents task_id with an example and the 'empty to list all' behavior. The description restates this same information ('either a single task_id or all tasks when task_id is empty') without adding new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource statement ('Check status of dispatched agent tasks') that immediately conveys the operation. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming delimit_agent_dashboard as the aggregate-view alternative and clarifying this tool returns raw status records, so an agent can disambiguate without inspecting other tools.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections that name exact alternatives (delimit_agent_dispatch, delimit_agent_complete) and the precise condition for choosing each. The sibling contrast with delimit_agent_dashboard further sharpens the decision boundary. Nothing is left to inference.

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