agent_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly declares the tool is read-only and lists the status values returned. This adds behavioral transparency beyond structured fields. However, it omits details on error handling or output format, which are not covered elsewhere.

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 of 14 words, front-loaded with the core purpose and status types. No redundancy or unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the key 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and read-only nature. However, it does not explain return values, error behavior, or how to interpret the statuses. It also lacks explicit guidance in relation to sibling tool 'agent_install', making it slightly incomplete for a tool that likely pairs with an install action.

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%, so the description should compensate. It does not mention 'path' or 'target' parameters. However, the parameter names and enum for target ('codex', 'claude', 'both') are self-explanatory, partially mitigating the gap. Description adds no extra meaning beyond what is inferable from name and type.

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 uses the verb 'inspect' with a specific resource 'pcq agent runtime asset status' and lists possible statuses (installed/missing/stale/divergent/unmanaged). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'agent_install' which likely writes, making the read-only inspection purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states 'without writing. Read-only,' which guides the agent to use it for safe inspection without side effects. It implies contrast with agent_install, but does not name the alternative or specify when not to use (e.g., for modifying state). Good context but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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