codemerge_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the read-only/side-effect story. It does disclose what the agent will receive—aggregated session counts, active claims, and lock holder—and 'summary' implies a non-mutating read, but it never explicitly states that calling it modifies nothing, nor does it mention staleness or lock semantics.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the 'Dashboard summary' label, followed by a scoped list of contents. No filler or repeated schema information.

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 zero-argument, read-only summary with an output schema, the definition is largely sufficient: it names the data areas and has no inputs to document. It is slightly incomplete only because it does not position itself against the granular siblings, but the output schema and low complexity make this minor.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline 4 applies because nothing in the description is needed, and nothing is missing.

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 opens with 'Dashboard summary', immediately signaling a status/aggregation tool rather than an action. It names concrete output segments—session counts by status, total active claims, and merge lock holder—so an agent can distinguish it from mutating siblings like codemerge_merge or codemerge_abandon.

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 'use when...' or 'prefer X over Y' guidance is provided. The phrase 'Dashboard summary' implies high-level review, and sibling tools like codemerge_sessions and claims_who_holds offer more granular alternatives, but the description does not state when to choose this over those, so the agent must infer.

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