agent_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the content of the response (active task, verification issues, close policy, traces), which implies a non-mutating read, but it says nothing about permissions, cost, truncation, or side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the tool's domain first and then enumerates its payload areas. Every clause carries information; nothing is 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?

With no output schema, the description must characterize the return, and it does so at a coarse level, but it leaves the required agent_id unexplained, doesn't clarify the limit's effect, and omits any behavioral or failure-mode context. Adequate minimum but with clear gaps for a two-parameter status 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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%: the limit parameter is documented in the schema, but the required agent_id is bare. The description mentions neither parameter nor explains how limit interacts with the 'recent runtime traces' it advertises, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Return) and resource (agent lifecycle status), then enumerates the four payload areas, which distinguishes it from narrower siblings like agent_active_task, agent_verify_state, and agent_trace. It reads as an aggregate status read rather than a mutation, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the sibling list that this aggregates what agent_active_task, agent_verify_state, and agent_trace return individually.

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