claude_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two things checked (enabled state and reachability), implying a non-mutating probe. However, it doesn't say what the result looks like, whether it can fail/succeed independently on each dimension, or whether it has side effects, leaving real behavioral gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The condition being tested is stated immediately and nothing is wasted.

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 trivial zero-param probe this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the description should describe the return shape (e.g., a boolean or an enabled/reachable status pair). Without that, an agent can't anticipate what a "not reachable" result looks like.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies since no parameter semantics are needed.

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?

States a specific verb ("Check") and the exact conditions tested ("whether Claude delegation is enabled and reachable"), which is more precise than a bare "get status". It doesn't explicitly name how it differs from siblings like claude_set_enabled or claude_read_result, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives — no guidance such as "call before claude_ask to verify delegation is available," and no mention of the sibling tools. The only cue is the tool name itself, which is weak routing information for an agent.

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