pleach_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any prerequisites. The description only lists the data categories without clarifying the operation's safety profile.

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 no filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 description lists the key data categories returned (session/fork counts, live sessions, edges), which gives the agent a good idea of what to expect. However, it does not specify the output format or response structure, and since there is no output schema, the description leaves some ambiguity. Still, for a simple status tool with one optional parameter, this is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already provides full documentation for the only parameter 'cwd' (with a clear description and optionality). The description adds no information about parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given complete schema 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 identifies the resource (pleach tracking data) and lists specific content (session/fork counts, live sessions, observed vs inferred edges), giving a clear idea of what the tool reports. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'show', relying on the noun phrase 'What pleach is tracking'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pleach_log or pleach_summary. It only states what the tool reports, without any context on selection criteria or exclusions.

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