status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool is authoritative for final totals, and its diagnostics should be exclusively trusted after COMPLETE. 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The core purpose and read-only nature are front-loaded, followed by the critical usage instruction. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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 parameterless status tool, the description covers what it does, when to call it, and how to use its output for final totals. It does not describe the structure of diagnostics, but the authoritative usage guidance compensates enough given the simple interface and no output schema.

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 fully descriptive with an empty object, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description even models the intended call as 'status {}', which is helpful. Baseline for 0 params is 4; no additional explanation is needed.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('read-only authoritative review progress and diagnostics'), clearly distinguishing it as the source of final totals. The phrase 'authoritative' positions it against siblings like get_task without ambiguity. It is immediately obvious what this tool does.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it: 'After the server reports COMPLETE, call status {}'. This gives clear timing context and tells the agent to use its diagnostics for final totals. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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