curator_review_status

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

Discloses that it shows status information and is intended for checking daemon health. With no annotations, it effectively conveys the read-only nature and purpose, though it could explicitly state it has no side effects.

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 sentences that are concise and front-loaded: the first sentence lists what is shown, and the second adds the purpose. No extraneous 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?

Despite having no parameters, the description fully covers the tool's output and use case. The presence of an output schema documents return values, so no further details are necessary.

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 has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description adds no parameter information. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as no additional semantic context is 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?

Clearly states it shows curator configuration, last 5 passes, and latest REPORT path, and distinguishes its purpose as a sanity-check for daemon aliveness and cursor advancement. This sets it apart from sibling tools like curator_review and curator_run.

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?

Provides clear context that it should be used to sanity-check the daemon's status. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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