Cordon Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by listing the type of information returned (scope, assets, findings, etc.), which helps an agent set expectations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as potential rate limiting on the tool itself or data freshness, so it adds only modest context beyond annotations.

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, information-dense sentence that immediately identifies the subject ('Current engagement') and lists the key content. It is front-loaded and has no filler or redundant phrasing, making it highly 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 that the tool has an output schema and read-only annotations, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose and content. It lists the major categories an agent would expect, and the output schema handles return details. It does not mention any prerequisites or failure conditions, but for a status tool this is acceptable and complete enough.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (vacuous). No further parameter information is required.

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 provides a status summary of the current engagement, enumerating specific content categories (scope, assets, findings, budget, rate limits, approvals). This distinguishes it from siblings like cordon_load_scope (which loads scope) and cordon_finish (which finalizes). The verb 'Current engagement' implies a retrieval operation, though it is slightly terse.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions for use, exclusions, or relationships to related tools such as scope_check or approval_pending. The use case is implied (when you need engagement status) but not stated.

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