rtos_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully signal that the tool reports 'whether the RTOS row is present' rather than erroring on a project without RTOS configured, which is a real behavioral disclosure. However, it says nothing about failure modes, permissions, or output shape for a tool with no output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a tight enumeration of return contents. Every clause earns its place, though the list is dense enough that it reads almost like a schema echo.

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 read-only inspection tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, enumerating the returned fields plus the RTOS-row presence check covers what an agent needs to decide to call it. The missing piece is the relationship to the rtos_objects/rtos_config 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 coverage is 100% and the single project_id parameter is documented, including the 'defaults to the last used' fallback. The description adds nothing about how project_id scoping interacts with the returned state, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Read' plus a specific resource ('the project's RTOS state') is followed by an explicit enumeration of what is returned: active mode, .ioc prefix, objects per type, config scalars, and RTOS row presence. It is unambiguous what the tool retrieves, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely overlapping siblings rtos_objects and rtos_config, which appear to expose subsets of the same data.

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 use this snapshot read versus rtos_objects, rtos_config, or rtos_schema, all of which are adjacent tools in the same family. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Read'; no preconditions, no exclusions, and no alternative routing are given.

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