Omarchy feature status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explicitly states the operation is read-only ('Read', 'without changing it'), which is the key behavioral trait. It also provides a concrete semantic detail ('Idle enabled means normal idle behavior is allowed') that adds value beyond a generic read. It does not cover output format or errors, but for a simple non-destructive read, this is reasonably transparent.

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 primary purpose and read-only nature are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a relevant, specific nuance about the 'idle' feature. Every word earns its place; the description is clear and efficient.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should convey what an agent can expect. It states a 'normalized enabled/disabled state' but does not specify the return format (e.g., boolean, string, enum) or any edge-case behavior. For a simple read tool with one enums parameter, this is adequate but leaves the response format open. A short note on the return value would make it complete.

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 description needs to compensate. It mentions 'an allow-listed Omarchy feature' which refers to the 'feature' parameter, but it does not elaborate on the parameter's meaning, the allowable values (though the enum in the schema covers that), or the implication of 'normalized' state. The description adds almost no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides via the enum list.

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 ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('normalized enabled/disabled state for an allow-listed Omarchy feature') while explicitly stating it does not change anything. This distinguishes it from mutation tools like toggle_feature and omarchy_default_set, and from version info siblings, so the purpose is unambiguous and non-tautological.

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 phrase 'without changing it' implies this is for querying rather than mutating, and the contrast with the sibling toggle_feature is implicit. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use this to check status before toggling') or mention any prerequisites. Guidance is present but largely inferred.

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