readiness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only names output categories. It does not state that this is a read-only counting operation, whether it requires any auth, or how results are grouped. The listed categories (verified/tested/carded/draft) are modestly useful context but far from complete.

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?

A single short sentence with the core information front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the fragment structure and slash-separated list are slightly informal.

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, no-output-schema reporting tool, the description roughly tells the agent what it returns. But it never defines what the readiness categories mean or what form the counts take, leaving a small but real gap for an agent deciding whether this answers its question.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for a parameterless tool, a 4 is appropriate since the schema is empty and needs no elaboration.

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 conveys that this reports counts of tools grouped by readiness state (verified/tested/carded/draft), which is a specific resource. However the verb is only implied by 'How many', and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like build_harness_status or describe. A reader can guess the purpose but not confidently tell it apart from related status tools.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus alternatives such as build_harness_status or discover. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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