ctverify:status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool returns counts by status and a citation list, plus filter behavior, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, describe the list format/order, or mention any side effects.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence gives practical filter usage. Every phrase earns its place.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the high-level output and two key filter parameters but leaves gaps: no tool-selection context, no return field details, and no mention of pagination behavior beyond what the schema already states. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining filter_status and filter_claim, particularly clarifying that filter_claim can 'find missing ones' via empty-string matching. This is valuable interpretive context.

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 verb and resource: 'Show verification progress of a citation registry' and summarizes the returned content as counts by status and a list of citations. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ctverify:get or bib:list, so it stops short of a 5.

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 filter-level guidance ('Use filter_status... Use filter_claim...') but no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as ctverify:get or bib:list. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative tool mention, so tool-selection guidance is essentially absent.

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