mdan_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds the scope of the status output but discloses no deeper behavioral traits, such as whether the status is live or cached, whether it derives from persisted workflow state, or whether an active workflow is required.

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 front-loaded clause, 'Project status:', followed by a compact enumeration of the five content categories. Every item earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema information, though the structure is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the key output categories an agent needs to judge usefulness. It is slightly thin on whether the status reflects live or cached state and what grounds the 'recommended next step,' but the tool's simplicity keeps these gaps minor.

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 and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies because parameter semantics are a non-issue; the description correctly spends no space on them.

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 identifies the resource — project status — and enumerates its contents: current workflow and step, completed workflows per phase, artifacts, decisions, and the recommended next step. This clearly distinguishes it from granular siblings like mdan_list_workflows and mdan_list_agents, and it is not a tautology. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'fetch,' so the operation is implied rather than stated.

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 content list implies the use case — obtain an aggregate project status overview — which separates it in scope from the more specific sibling tools. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no alternative tool is named, and no selection conditions are given, so the agent must infer the routing from the content list alone.

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