work_session_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It suggests a read-only report, but does not clarify whether this action has side effects, requires a prior takeover state, or what 'automatic takeover' means operationally.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler and front-loads the main purpose. It is concise, though it sacrifices necessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description omits parameter semantics and usage context. While an output schema exists, that does not compensate for the unexplained 'project' parameter or the ambiguous 'automatic takeover' concept.

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 single 'project' parameter has schema description coverage of 0%, and the description does not mention it at all. An agent cannot determine what 'project' means, whether it filters output, or why it has an empty default.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and names a concrete resource ('the automatic takeover performed when this server started'), making the tool's purpose reasonably clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like work_state or work_claim, and 'automatic takeover' is jargon that is not explained.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or sibling tool distinctions, so an agent receives no contextual selection help.

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