delimit_daemon_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only side effects, the internal function called (ai.daemon.get_daemon_status), and the return value structure. It lacks details on authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only status check this is sufficient. Score 4 due to minor omissions.

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 well-structured with clear section headings (When to use, When NOT to use, Sibling contrast, Side effects, Args, Returns). It is concise, with no redundant sentences, and front-loads the primary purpose.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains the return value (loop counts, items processed, recent actions, next_steps). It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 no parameters (input schema is empty). The description explicitly states 'Args: None.' with 100% schema coverage, meeting the baseline of 4 for zero parameters. The return value description adds context beyond schema.

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 verb 'Report' and the resource 'autonomous daemon's status', and specifies the contents (loops, items, actions). It also contrasts with sibling tools delimit_daemon_run and delimit_daemon_classify, providing explicit differentiation.

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 explicitly provides 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, naming alternative tools (delimit_daemon_run and delimit_daemon_classify) for the excluded cases. This gives clear guidance on selecting the correct tool.

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