feedback_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, has no side effects, or any authentication/rate-limit constraints. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and key outputs. Every part is meaningful and no redundant information.

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 has 6 optional parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential facets. It does not detail return format, but the output schema presumably handles that. Slight gap: no mention of defaults or how project context is resolved, but overall adequate for a status-query tool.

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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context by mapping components like 'gap analysis' to check_gaps and 'trend' to compute_trend, but this is already implied by parameter names and schema descriptions. No significant extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'UTF feedback loop status', and enumerates the components: gap analysis, coverage health, trend, and delta requirements. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_coverage or generate_report.

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 its use for obtaining a summary status of the feedback loop, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., query_registry for raw data, analyze_coverage for deep dive). No when-not-to-use or alternative references are provided.

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