mureo_batch_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only; mureo never closes a batch on your behalf,' which is critical for a status tool and prevents the agent from expecting side effects. It also discloses the warning condition for unusually long-open batches, adding valuable behavioral context beyond a bare listing.

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 three sentences long, with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core reporting functionality first, then adds the warning behavior and the read-only guarantee. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

This is a simple read-only status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description adequately covers the purpose, the exact data returned (batch, members, platforms, warning), the edge case of no batch (null), and the safety guarantee. No additional information is necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% because the single 'path' parameter includes a full description ('Optional path to STATE.json. Defaults to STATE.json in the MCP server's current working directory. Paths outside it are refused.'). The tool description does not add any information about the parameter, but at this coverage level the schema already provides sufficient semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Report which batch is currently collecting action_log entries (null when none is), how many members it holds so far, and which platforms they span.' This uses a specific verb ('report'), specifies the resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like mureo_batch_begin and mureo_batch_end by focusing on status rather than mutation.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (to inspect the current batch, its size, and platform coverage, and to detect a long-open batch). It also implies a separation of concerns by stating 'Read-only; mureo never closes a batch on your behalf,' indicating that closing is handled elsewhere. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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