Get Focus Mode status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the timer is returned 'if active,' but never states that the call is a side-effect-free read, what is returned when no focus mode is running, or whether any authentication is needed – all material gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 15-word sentence that front-loads the core action and packs the mode variants, cycle, and conditional timer into compact parenthetical phrasing. 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?

The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers the main return fields. However, without an output schema, the description must explain the return contract fully, and 'if active' leaves the inactive-state behavior (empty, null, or error) unexplained.

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 takes 0 parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends its effort describing the return payload instead, which is the right trade-off for a parameterless getter.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Focus Mode status') and enumerates exactly what comes back: mode with its three enum-like variants (Flowtime/Pomodoro/Countdown), cycle, and running timer. This clearly differentiates it from the generic sp_status and the task-centric siblings.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like sp_status and sp_task_control_get_current present, nothing tells the agent why it would choose this status getter over those, so the usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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