covenant__covenant_status

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the tool returns status information (state, budget, check count), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe, nor does it describe any side effects or prerequisites. The description adds some transparency but could be more explicit.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a bracketed context prefix. Every word adds value, and the key information (what it returns) is front-loaded immediately after the bracket. No redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema, the description partially explains return values ('current state, consumed/remaining budget, and check count'). However, it does not define what 'state' values are, what the budget numbers represent, or what 'check count' refers to. For a tool with only one parameter, it is somewhat complete but lacks detail about the output format and semantics.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The only parameter (covenant_id) is not mentioned in the description at all, so no additional meaning is provided beyond the schema. This is a significant 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'Current state, consumed/remaining budget, and check count' for a covenant, which is a specific resource. The prefix '[covenant — deny-by-default authority leases]' provides context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like covenant__list_covenants (which lists covenants) and covenant__grant_covenant (which creates them) by focusing on status retrieval.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where status is needed versus listing covenants or other actions. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool recommendations are given.

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