agent_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, which is critical for safety. It also lists the asset statuses it reports, but does not describe output format or any additional constraints (e.g., permissions). Adequate for a simple inspection tool.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral trait (read-only). No unnecessary words.

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 tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and safety. It could benefit from a brief mention of parameter roles or typical usage, but it is sufficiently complete for simple status checks.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the two parameters (path and target) or their meanings. The description adds no value beyond the schema; agents are left to infer from parameter names alone. This is a significant gap.

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 tool inspects pcq agent runtime asset status, listing specific statuses (installed/missing/stale/divergent/unmanaged) and emphasizing read-only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_install or apply_plan which modify state.

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 specifies 'without writing. Read-only,' which clearly indicates when to use the tool (for inspection) and when not to (for modifications). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for writing, leaving some inference needed from the sibling list.

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