task_status

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

The description discloses a specific behavioral trait beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it does not scan the source cache, which affects performance and output. It also mentions 'gate warnings' as part of the output. However, since the tool is read-only and no side effects exist, the added context is sufficient but not overly rich.

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 two sentences: the first tells what it does and its key behavioral constraint, the second gives usage guidance and a read-only note. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

With zero parameters, no output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides a complete picture: what it returns, when to use it, and the alternative. For a simple read-only snapshot tool, no further information is needed.

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 there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description focuses on the output and usage, which is appropriate.

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 ('Print') and resource ('current Task Passport'), and specifies the exact contents (status, objective, next actions, verification) plus gate warnings. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting it does not scan the source cache and explicitly points to task_audit for a different use case.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Call for a fast lifecycle check; use task_audit for the full continuity audit.' This clearly says when to use this tool and which alternative to choose for a different need. The 'without scanning the source cache' further signals it is a lightweight operation.

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