tree_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, explains that spending is returned as two separate figures that are not added together, and notes that model-written text is marked. It does not cover permission requirements or error behavior, but for a read-only status view it discloses the most relevant behavioral traits.

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 dense but front-loaded: the first clause establishes the read-only tree view, and the rest lists the returned information. The second sentence adds a useful output nuance. It is slightly run-on in the first sentence but not padded.

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 one-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it identifies the input as a root run id and describes the returned verdict, nodes, stops, held items, limits, and spending breakdown. It leaves out run-id format and error behavior, but the core context needed to call the tool is present.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by saying the parameter is the run id of the tree's root, which is more informative than the bare 'run' string in the schema. It still does not describe the expected run-id format or whether any run id is acceptable, so the compensation is partial.

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 a specific resource and scope: a read-only view of one recursive-councils tree by its root run id. It also enumerates what the view contains, so the agent knows what kind of information the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as run_status or spend_report, which keeps it from 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?

Usage is implied by 'Read-only view' and the root-run-id framing, suggesting inspection of a specific tree. However, the description does not state when to use this tool instead of run_status, list_runs, or spend_report, nor does it give explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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