onda_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states this is a status-read operation, but it does not explicitly say it is non-destructive or describe any side effects (or lack thereof). It also omits details about return structure or edge cases (e.g., when no session is active).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a practical usage hint. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and enumerates the key data areas (workspace, tab, pane). However, it leaves 'their details' vague and does not mention potential failure modes or what happens if no session is active, which would make it more complete for an agent.

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, and the schema is empty. The description correctly implies that no parameters are needed by focusing on the current state. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate because the description fully aligns with the parameterless nature of the tool.

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 ('Get') and identifies the resource ('current Onda session state') as well as the specific components returned (active workspace, tab, pane, and their details). It is clear and likely differentiates from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named 'onda_context'.

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 a direct usage hint: 'Use this to understand the current context before taking actions.' This gives clear context for when to call the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly point to alternative sibling tools.

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