Get Claude Subagent Status

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them — it enumerates exactly what the tool inspects (git status, diff stat, changed files, CLI availability) — which clarifies this is an environment-readiness check, not a literal 'subagent status' report.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists the exact checks performed. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with one parameter, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it checks, why it exists (pre-delegation readiness), and its safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly is missing.

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% (workspacePath is documented as 'Absolute or resolvable path to the target Git repository'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only loosely echoes the parameter via the word 'workspace' and adds no syntax, format, or usage nuance beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Check workspace git status, diff stat, changed files') and adds a precise scope: availability of git and Claude Code CLI. The closing phrase 'before delegating work' positions it distinctly from its sibling delegate_to_claude, so an agent can tell which one to select.

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 this tool applies ('before delegating work'), which effectively signals a preflight check on the workspace before using the sibling. It does not, however, explicitly name delegate_to_claude as the alternative or state a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops one step short of fully explicit routing.

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