Tell Status

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the refusal behavior for closing and the blind-round reset rule, which are non-obvious constraints. But it omits permissions/auth requirements, what 'status' values are accepted, and what the response contains.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action stated first and the critical closing constraint following. The parenthetical about a new blind round is dense but earns its place by preventing misuse.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a 5-parameter status-setting tool with zero schema coverage the description is too thin: it never defines the status values or the identity/project parameters an agent must supply.

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% across 5 parameters. The description references 'tell' and the closing verdict requirement but never explains 'project', 'id', the accepted 'status' values, or the optional 'why'/'when' fields, leaving most parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource ('Open or close a tell'), clarifying that this tool sets tell status rather than showing it (tell_show). The name 'tell_status' is slightly ambiguous but the description resolves it. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to distinguish against, so 4 rather than 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?

Gives one concrete usage condition (closing requires a passed tell_judged verdict, and a new measure resets the blind round), which is genuinely useful. However, it never says when to call this versus tell_show/tell_check, nor how to open a tell versus close it in terms of the status parameter.

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