curator_review_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description complements them by explaining what the read-only operation surfaces: config, fingerprints, and report path. It adds context about the sanity-check purpose without contradicting the annotations.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core 'Show' statement is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds only the essential purpose of the tool.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what is shown, what it is for, and that it is safe to invoke. No critical behavioral or usage information is missing.

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 and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the description carries no parameter burden. A baseline of 4 is appropriate given the absence of any parameters to explain.

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 verb ('Show') and a precise set of resources: curator config, inventory fingerprints, and the latest REPORT path. This clearly distinguishes it from other status tools like live_status or spawn_status by naming curator-specific content.

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 second sentence explicitly frames when to use the tool: as a sanity-check for whether the daemon is alive, advancing the cursor, and producing readable REPORTs. It does not name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear and specific enough to guide an agent.

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