agents_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. It discloses what the tool reports (versions, paths, models, thinking levels) and implies a read-only operation via 'inspect', but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, mention potential errors, or clarify whether it requires network access. For a status tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope, and the second enumerates the specific data reported. The most critical information is front-loaded.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear list of what the status report contains. It does not detail the structure of the return value (e.g., JSON format), but for a simple inspection tool this is sufficient. The only missing piece is an explicit note about side effects or prerequisites, which is minor here.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies that no arguments are needed, and it adds value by describing the output content, which compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('status of all supported CLI coding agents'), and enumerates the exact agents covered (Claude Code, Antigravity, Codex, Cursor). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools that handle task delegation, sessions, and diffs.

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: call this when you need to check installed versions, paths, models, or thinking levels of coding agents. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of the siblings makes the purpose unambiguous. A small gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance.

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