library_context_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'Read' aligns without contradiction. However, it adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., error conditions, rate limits, or side effects) beyond what the annotations already convey.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy or extraneous information. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without verbosity.

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 simple read-status tool, the description conveys the essential action and scope. However, it omits any mention of output format, typical use cases, or prerequisites (e.g., must have an active session), leaving some gaps in completeness for a fully self-contained definition.

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 description does not explain the parameters at all. While 'collection' has a schema description, 'session_id' lacks one, and the tool description fails to clarify how these parameters relate to 'one agent thread.' The low schema coverage (50%) is not compensated, leaving the meaning of 'session_id' ambiguous.

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's verb ('Read') and enumerates the specific resources it accesses (context-governor watermarks, queue occupancy, prompt pressure, worker health) along with the scope ('for one agent thread'), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a status check is preferred over a stop or shelve operation. It lacks contextual cues like 'use this when you need to monitor progress' or 'for real-time metrics.'

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