collective_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a key behavioral trait: it is read-only and never writes to the source doc. However, it does not mention error behavior, response format, or how filters interact with the status matrix, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's subject, source, and read-only nature without waste. Every part earns its place.

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?

Despite having no annotations, the description provides the source document path, the nature of the data (merged/planned/gap), and the read-only guarantee. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's responsibility. This is complete for a low-complexity status query tool.

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 describes both parameters fully with examples and substring-match semantics, yielding 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: returning collective-comm feature parity status (merged/planned/gap) from a specific source file. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'list', but the resource and scope are unmistakable and distinguish it from sibling tools like program_status or read_doc.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description (query collective-comm parity status), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The read-only note is a mild usage caveat, but no clear contextual guidance is provided.

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