get_bus_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it returns a roll-up of status data, and exposes `_meta.max_lease_seconds` which represents a silent clamp for claim/heartbeat requests. It also clarifies that absence of `max_lease_seconds` is not an error but indicates an older server. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with the main purpose upfront, followed by detailed context about `_meta.max_lease_seconds`. While slightly lengthy, every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise but remains 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 the presence of an output schema (indicated by context), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential elements of the roll-up and provides critical context about the meta field. The tool is complex but the description is complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies as no parameter info 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 roll-up for the command-center panel including active lanes, orphaned/stale claims, recent messages, and pending display-only action flags. It also specifies the exposure of `_meta.max_lease_seconds` for coordination-bus v1.3+. This distinguishes it from siblings like claim_lane and heartbeat_lane.

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 explicitly advises to check this tool before claiming a lane for longer than the default to know if the request will be honored in full. It also notes behavior differences for older bus servers, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool.

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