cloudpin_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe inspection, so the description's main job is to add context. It enumerates what gets surfaced (accounts, pins, environment, hooks), which is useful, but says nothing about whether it shells out to CLIs, how slow it is, or how it handles a missing .cloudpin.yml.

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?

It is two sentences with no padding, and the core capability is front-loaded. The parenthetical CLI list is long but earns its place by telling the agent exactly which tools are covered.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining results, and it does so by naming the four categories of information returned. Only the exact shape of the response (per-CLI mapping vs. list, file path vs. parsed pins) is left unspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the cwd parameter is already fully documented as "Project folder; defaults to the current one." The description adds nothing about cwd and does not need to, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the specific resource (cloud accounts per CLI, .cloudpin.yml pins, environment, agent hooks) and scope ("here", "this project"). It is clear what the tool reports, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling cloudpin_check, so an agent must infer the difference from the names alone.

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?

It gives an explicit usage trigger: "Call it before cloud work." That is real guidance, but there are no exclusions and no mention of when to prefer cloudpin_check, leaving the sibling choice unresolved.

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