Ingest status + what's new

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds useful context about what is returned (per-source run metadata plus recent additions), but with no output schema it stops short of describing structure, freshness semantics, or what 'last-run' means. Adequate but not 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?

Two tight sentences with no waste; the purpose is front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 status tool with a simple 3-param schema and annotations covering safety, the description conveys enough to invoke it correctly. Given there is no output schema, a note on the returned fields would have made it fully self-contained.

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 67%: since and format carry descriptions while limit does not. The description references 'most recent sessions added', loosely implying the since/limit scoping, but adds no syntax or default behavior beyond the schema. Baseline for mid-to-high coverage.

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 verb ('shows') and concrete resources ('per-source last-run metadata', 'most recent sessions added'), so an agent understands it is a status/observation tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling wwdc_export_status, which the agent could confuse with this one.

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?

'Use to confirm the index is fresh before querying' gives a clear trigger and even sequences it relative to other calls. There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative, but the when-to-use context is unambiguous.

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