dialectic_mine_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description does not contradict, but adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., no mention of data freshness, cost, or side effects). However, with annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description is very concise (one line) but under-specified. It could be more informative while staying short. Front-loads key info but lacks a clear verb.

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 status tool with output schema present, the description adequately hints at what is returned (config, buffer sizes, capture passes). Could be more explicit but sufficient for a simple tool.

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?

No parameters in input schema, so description does not need to add parameter details. Schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Baseline 4 for zero parameters.

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?

Description lacks a clear verb, just lists items ('Miner config + buffer sizes + last 5 capture passes'). It implies a status retrieval but does not explicitly state 'returns' or 'retrieves'. Not distinguishing from sibling status tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Many sibling tools exist (e.g., dialectic_mine_run, dialectic_claim) but no differentiation provided.

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