board_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral value by warning that the response may include pending_outcomes and a loop_nudge, and that the nudge should be followed. It does not state that this is a read-only/status operation, whether it has side effects, or anything about permissions or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool reports and what it returns, with no filler. Jargon-heavy ('Шасси-онбординг', 'Принцепс/советники/линзы') adds density but not padding.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape (board readiness, one next step, possible pending_outcomes and loop_nudge). That covers what an agent needs to act, with only the safety/read-only profile left implicit.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level meaning is missing.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: a board/onboarding status check reporting what is ready (Princeps/advisors/lenses) plus one prioritized next build step. That's more than a restatement of the name. However, it never differentiates itself from siblings like loop_status or pending_outcomes, which overlap conceptually with the outputs it mentions.

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?

"Зови в начале, чтобы вести юзера за руку" explicitly says when to call it (at the start of a session, to guide the user). It gives clear invocation context but names no when-not condition and no alternative tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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