Bus Status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It communicates that the tool returns a live snapshot of occupants and active sessionsaine, implying a read-only status operation without side effects. This is adequate for a simple status tool, though it does not mention access requirements or freshness guarantees.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage context is given immediately after, making it easy for an agent to parse and apply.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description includes both what the tool reports and when it should be used. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly select and call it.

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 single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning about the agent parameter, but the schema already explains it, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the resource ('the bus') and the kind of information returned: who is present and which sessions are live. It is specific enough to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like bus_inbox or bus_send.

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?

It gives a clear 'when to use' directive: before sending, when multiple sessions may be open, to ensure the message reaches the active workspace. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficiently actionable for an agent.

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