evolve_apply_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, required permissions, or any behavioral traits. The description is adequate but lacks transparency on safety or auth needs.

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 that efficiently lists what the tool shows, with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action 'Show' and structured for quick comprehension.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but noted), the description covers the key display items. It could be more specific about 'evolve-applier config' or queue details, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 exist, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it correctly provides none.

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 clearly states it shows specific items: evolve-applier config, curator/evolve queues, running applier, and last 5 apply passes. Among siblings like evolve_apply and other status tools, it uniquely identifies its scope, distinguishing it effectively.

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 implies use for status checks of evolve-applier but does not explicitly state when to use or provide alternatives. No when-not-to-use guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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