evolve_apply_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the description carries a reduced burden. It adds the scope of aggregation (config, PRs, queues, events) but no behavioral context such as output size, cost, or freshness/staleness of the reported state.

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?

A single sentence, appropriately sized for the tool, front-loaded with the highest-level item (config). The dense '+' chaining reads as a jumbled list rather than clean prose, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not describe return values, and the enumeration of covered domains is reasonably complete. What is missing is when/why an agent should reach for this status rather than a sibling status tool, leaving a genuine gap for an aggregation tool in a crowded namespace.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise for the description to clarify, and none 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?

The verb 'Show' and the enumerated resources (evolve-applier config, open applier PRs, queues, running applier, recent events) make it clear this is a read/diagnostic status dump. The name and content distinguish it from mutation siblings like evolve_apply and evolve_mark_applied, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast with.

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 only lists what is displayed; it gives no trigger for when to call it, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. With many status-like siblings (agent_status, live_status, curator_review_status, shadow_review_status), an agent gets no guidance on which status tool answers which question.

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