postrc_status

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only, safe to call anytime' and adds value by disclosing the exact return fields and its role as a pre-check for postrc_gate. It doesn't contradict annotations, and the extra context about return contents exceeds what annotations provide.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with 'Check Post-RC validation progress' followed by actionable return values and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the purpose, lists return values, gives usage context, and differentiates from sibling tools. It covers all necessary aspects without requiring additional information.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter project_path, with a clear description ('Absolute path to the project directory'). The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Check Post-RC validation progress' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by listing the exact return values (active modules, latest scan ID, findings count, override count, gate status) and explicitly positioning itself relative to postrc_gate.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this to orient yourself when resuming a session or when the user asks about validation status.' It also provides a direct alternative/order guidance: 'Call before postrc_gate if you need to verify scan results are available.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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