trace_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only, safe to call anytime' and lists the exact return values (coverage percentages, orphan lists). It also notes the prerequisite dependency on trace_enhance_prd, giving the agent a complete safety and dependency picture.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage scenarios, then return contents. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or fluff. It is tightly structured and highly scannable.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and its prerequisite. The usage guidance and return listing make it fully self-contained for an agent.

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% description coverage for the single parameter 'project_path', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific context beyond implying the tool operates on a project. It neither enriches nor contradicts the schema, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check traceability coverage.' It also lists concrete outputs (total requirements, implemented count, etc.), making the tool's function unmistakable. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, the unique focus on coverage percentages and orphan lists distinguishes it from trace_enhance_prd and trace_map_findings.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when user asks "what percentage is done?" or "what did we miss?"' It also gives a temporal constraint ('after trace_enhance_prd') and a secondary use case ('mid-build to track progress'). This provides clear guidance on both when and when not to use it.

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