status

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation with no external side effects. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: reading quotas happens 'off the server loop' and can take about 15 seconds, which helps an agent anticipate latency.

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?

Two compact sentences are front-loaded with the returned state fields and end with the important latency caveat. No sentence is wasted, and the structure matches the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. The listed state contents and quota-latency warning cover the main operational concerns, though it still omits sibling-relative guidance.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and no parameter-related gaps exist.

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 states a specific resource and enumerates its contents: unread messages, last wake, bell threads, Codex port, Antigravity sidecar, and quotas. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes status from siblings like survey, summary, or where, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 implies a status-check use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not say when to prefer survey, summary, where, or inbox, nor does it explain whether it should be called before or after those tools.

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