cyd_runtime_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation, but gives no details on side effects, blocking behavior, or whether the state is a snapshot. The ambiguous 'Control, any layer' further muddies the behavioral profile.

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 very short and front-loaded with the machine-specific label, but the 'Control, any layer' phrase is confusing and appears out of place. It's concise but poorly structured, wasting words on ambiguity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should hint at the return value format. It only says it reads state, not what the agent will receive (e.g., a JSON object with pause and frame fields). The ambiguous 'Control' phrase also leaves room for misinterpretation. For a simple read tool, this is under-specified.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage by default. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description doesn't need to explain parameters. It also doesn't introduce conflicting parameter info.

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 specifies a clear verb ('read') and resource ('cooperative MicroPython runtime pause and frame state'), and the machine-specific context ('cyd') distinguishes it from generic tools. However, the phrase 'Control, any layer' is ambiguous and detracts from clarity, as it could imply control functionality that contradicts the read-only intent.

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 like arcl_status or cyd_pause. It doesn't mention scenarios, exclusions, or how this status read differs from sibling read tools, leaving the agent to infer.

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