dsh_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to re-state safety. It adds value by enumerating the detailed return contents, but it discloses no additional behavioral traits like permission requirements, performance implications, or error handling. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and lists key status aspects. While it is a long list, it is still concise and efficiently communicates the tool's output breadth without redundancy.

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?

The tool returns many distinct elements, and without an output schema the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It lists them explicitly but lacks details on their structure, meaning, or edge cases. It also provides no usage context, making the description adequate but not fully complete for a complex status 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 schema has one required parameter taskId with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it or explain its format or purpose. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to infer taskId solely from the name and pattern.

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 states the tool returns a comprehensive status object, listing specific components like availability/execution state, sessions, queue depths, and bridge cursor/watermarks. This distinguishes it from siblings like dsh_host_status, though it does not explicitly mention the task context, which is implied by the taskId parameter.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dsh_tail or dsh_host_status. The description only lists output fields without indicating preferred scenarios or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name and context.

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