windows_shell_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the list of specific status categories and the fact it doesn't execute commands, which adds some behavioral context beyond annotations but doesn't elaborate on output format or side effects (none expected). With annotations covering the core behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the verb 'Report' and then lists the specific items. Every word contributes value, with no fluff or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params), has rich annotations covering safety, and an output schema exists. The description lists exactly what statuses are reported, covering all relevant aspects for such a status tool. No additional context is needed given the low complexity and structured annotations.

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 takes zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description correctly omits parameter details. Baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description doesn't attempt to fabricate unnecessary parameter explanations.

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 it reports status (PowerShell 7, standard-user, Job Object, authorization, workspace, policy) and explicitly says 'without executing a command', distinguishing it from siblings like shell_run or windows_shell_run. This is a specific verb-resource pair that leaves no ambiguity.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is given, but the phrase 'without executing a command' informs agents that this is a safe, non-executing status check. Siblings like shell_run and windows_shell_run imply alternatives, but no direct comparison or exclusions are stated. The usage context is inferred rather than explicit.

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