agy_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does convey that the read is a point-in-time snapshot ("right now") rather than a blocking wait, plus the shape of what is reported. It stops short of stating that the call is non-mutating, that it errors on an unknown session, or that it returns immediately rather than waiting for work to finish.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the returned-fields summary front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists and the description already sketches the return payload, so return semantics are adequately covered. The remaining gap is operational: which session_id to supply and how this differs from agy_wait or agy_sessions, which matters in a seven-sibling family where several tools touch session state.

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 required parameter, session_id, has 0% schema coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The reader must infer that it identifies which AGY session to report on and where that id comes from (presumably agy_sessions or agy_list_agents), so the description does not 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?

Names a specific verb and resource — reports what an AGY session is doing right now — and enumerates the returned facts (idle/working state, current turn, elapsed time, last tool steps). That is concrete enough to separate it from mutating siblings like agy_say or agy_start, but it never contrasts with agy_wait, the closest read-tool alternative.

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?

"Use it when the user asks for progress" gives one clear trigger for invocation. However, there is no when-not guidance and no mention of agy_wait, which an agent could easily confuse with status polling since both concern a session's state over time.

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