Read coordinator status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by stating it is a single consistent read and enumerating the exact content included, which helps the agent understand what the returned picture covers without an output schema.

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 front-loaded with the core capability and content list, then adds usage guidance and alternatives. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: what, safety, when, and what else to use.

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 no-argument read tool, the description completely specifies what the result includes, its consistency property, and when to call it. It also points to sibling tools for filtering and detail, so an agent has enough context to choose correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the description explicitly says 'takes no arguments,' leaving no ambiguity. The schema fully covers parameter semantics, and the description reinforces that no arguments should be supplied.

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 states a specific purpose: get the whole coordination picture in one call, enumerating active agents, intents grouped by lifecycle status, claims, conficts, and ChangeSets. It also differentiates from siblings by point out query_work for filtering and get_intent/get_changeset for detail.

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 explicitly says when to use it: orient at session start or before choosing work. It also names alternatives for other needs: query_work for filtering and get_intent/get_changeset for single item detail, making routing clear.

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