get_scheduled_task_runtime_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait beyond structured data: script source is deliberately withheld from the response. However, it says nothing about how fresh the state is, whether it requires the task runtime to be active, or what failure looks like when a task is not running.

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 with no filler. The scope constraint is packed into the same sentence as the purpose rather than padded into extra lines.

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 is the only source for what comes back, yet it never characterizes the runtime state itself (states, fields, or shape). For a zero-param read tool this is a moderate gap rather than a fatal one, since the leading clause at least tells the agent the response is a state snapshot and excludes script source.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no argument semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is trivially complete.

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 and resource: returns the PacketTunnel scheduled-task runtime state, and adds a distinguishing scope note ('without exposing script source') that separates it from config-oriented siblings like get_scheduled_task. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer when an agent wants configuration rather than runtime state.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance. The agent must infer from the name and from siblings such as get_scheduled_task vs get_scheduled_task_runtime_status that this returns live state rather than stored configuration; that routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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