pet_status

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses that state comes from the daemon, can be 'unknown', and includes program and stale file info. No mention of destructive or rate-limit behavior, which is acceptable for a read-only status tool.

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 fairly concise but the first sentence is grammatically awkward ('The session and whether...'). It front-loads key info but could be structured more smoothly.

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?

Given lack of output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers return values and data source adequately but misses explanation of the session parameter, leaving a gap for effective tool invocation.

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 description does not mention the 'session' parameter despite 0% schema coverage. The parameter is optional and defaults to null, but its purpose and expected values are unexplained, forcing the agent to guess.

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 that the tool reports session and machine running/stopped state, as well as the loaded program and stale source files. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on status rather than session management actions.

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 implies when to use this tool (to check status) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like pet_session_list. It provides context about daemon dependency but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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