codesweep_status

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

The description discloses a non-obvious behavior: archived entries are excluded from the total/processed/remaining counts and are surfaced separately as `archived`. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only, but 'overview' and the absence of any side-effect language make that reasonably clear, especially given the output schema.

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 core behavior is captured in a single front-loaded sentence, followed by one argument line with no filler. Every word adds value.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the input format, the output areas (counts and breakdowns), and the special archived handling. The output schema relieves the description of explaining individual return fields.

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 schema only says sweep_ref is a required string, while the description adds the expected format (SW-N) and that a name is also accepted. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 identifies the resource (a sweep) and the result (total/processed/remaining/archived counts plus per-tag and per-state breakdowns), which sets it apart from list- or mutation-oriented siblings like codesweep_list and codesweep_add. It loses a point because 'Sweep overview' is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action verb such as 'Returns' or 'Gets'.

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 use case is implied by the word 'status' and the overview counts, but the description never states when to choose this tool over similar status tools (e.g., codemerge_status, milestone_status) or alternatives like codesweep_list. There is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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