agent_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose without detailing side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it modifies data. The schema hints that omitting agentId lists all agents, but this is not explicitly communicated in the description.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the tool's core function, which is appropriate for a simple retrieval tool.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits usage context and behavioral details, leaving gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool. The mention of 'active claims and recent episodes' provides some return-value context, but it is minimal.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing clear parameter meanings (agentId optional, profile with enum). The description adds overall context ('for an agent') but does not elaborate on parameter specifics beyond what the schema already offers. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 'Get active claims and recent episodes for an agent' uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('active claims and recent episodes') and target ('agent'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'agent_claim' (which likely deals with individual claims) and 'agent_release'.

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, such as when to use 'agent_claim' or 'episode_add'. It lacks context about prerequisites, scope (e.g., user's own agents vs. any agent), or exclusion criteria.

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