get_annotation_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds meaningful non-obvious behavioral context: presence is derived from files rather than a live command connection, which prevents the agent from over-reading a positive presence result as an active connection.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the semantic caveat placed immediately after the capability statement where it is most useful. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the key interpretive risk (file-based vs. live presence) is addressed. Minor gap: it never names which addon is being inspected, leaving that to inference from siblings.

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 0%, so the single required projectPath parameter is documented nowhere. The description says nothing about its format or expected value; the name is largely self-explanatory, which keeps this at a baseline-adequate 3 rather than lower.

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?

States a concrete verb (read) and enumerates what is reported: addon version, enablement, and editor/runtime presence. The resource is only inferable as the annotation addon from the sibling set (ensure_annotation_addon, list_annotations), not from the description itself, so it is clear but not fully self-distinguishing.

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 statement of when to call this rather than get_project_info, list_annotations, or ensure_annotation_addon, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance-like content is an interpretive caveat about presence, not about tool selection.

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