reef_agent_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by detailing the report's contents and reinforcing the non-editing behavior, but does not cover error conditions or additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single sentence with a clear list of report items, front-loading the purpose. It effectively summarizes the tool's output without excess, though it could be slightly more concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description lacks guidance on parameter usage. With 5 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the agent cannot determine how to correctly invoke the tool (e.g., what parameters are typical, which are optional).

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%, and the description provides no information about the 5 parameters (projectId, projectRef, focusFiles, freshnessPolicy, limit). The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the schema field names.

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 clearly defines the tool as a status summary for the reef agent-loop, listing specific report items like maintained known issues, changed files, stale diagnostics, etc. It explicitly states it never edits files, distinguishing it from mutation tools. The verb 'report' and resource 'status' are specific.

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 implies usage for getting an overview of agent health, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reef_known_issues' or 'reef_inspect'. No explicit when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.

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