status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reassert safety. It adds context by framing the output as 'ledger versus reality' and noting that the listening process is included 'when known', which is useful behavioral nuance. However, it does not explain side effects, error conditions, or how current-slot scoping resolves.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core concept ('Ledger versus reality') and then lists the concrete output contents. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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?

Given the low parameter complexity, the readOnly annotation, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics well. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'current slot' means and how this tool differs from current_context, but nothing critical is missing for invoking it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the sole optional parameter cwd already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 identifies the resource ('current slot'), the subject ('each service's state'), and enumerates the state categories plus the listening process. It lacks an explicit verb like 'reports' or 'shows', and it does not name sibling tools, so it is clear but not maximally sharp.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as current_context, resolve_port, or resolve_url. The description implies a diagnostic use case but does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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