ybiz_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only summary operation and lists what data is included, but it does not explicitly state that it performs no mutations, nor what happens when workspace is null, or what error conditions may arise.

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 a single compact sentence, front-loads the scope ('workspace summary'), and lists exactly what the summary contains. There is no filler or redundant content.

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?

The tool is simple, has one optional parameter, and an output schema exists, so return structure is covered. However, the description omits null-workspace behavior and does not position the tool relative to its siblings, leaving some context gaps.

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 clarifies that the tool is scoped to a workspace, but it does not explain the workspace parameter format, the meaning of null/default, or any accepted values.

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 that the tool returns a workspace summary and enumerates its contents: network config, branch count, baseline and feed presence. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that manipulate individual branches, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ybiz_list_branches, ybiz_validate, or ybiz_diff. The agent must infer from the name and sibling names that this is the high-level status overview.

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