task_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is read-only, does not scan the source cache, and is intended for a fast lifecycle check. This gives the agent a clear understanding of the tool's impact and performance characteristics.

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, each conveying essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and ends with a clear usage directive, demonstrating excellent conciseness and structure.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary information: purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and alternatives. It is complete and sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use this 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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter explanation is needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate because the description does not need to add meaning beyond the already complete schema.

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 prints a quick summary of the current Task Passport, listing specific components (status, objective, next actions, verification, gate warnings). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool task_audit by specifying it does not scan the source cache, making the purpose precise and unique.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call for a fast lifecycle check' and advises to 'use task_audit for the full continuity audit.' This clearly tells when to use this tool and when to use an alternative.

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